From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: "Curse of Fenric" was RE: ST:TNG Crit.vsDrWho SPOILERS!
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:09:25 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec16.153123.490@rivers> ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:

>> (b) chess,

>I thought that chess was a game.  Therefore how does one trivialize trivia?

(sigh) I wish you'd read the other post, where I explained that I meant the
*metaphor* of chess and not chess itself.

> (c) Norse myth,

>Norse mythology was ripe territory for the series to tackle as neither it
>nor any other TV series I have ever seen had ever ventured into that territory
>before.

And it did a really terrible job, too.  If it had done a decent job with it,
I would have said "venture away."  But the serial was just too *busy*. 
There were four different stories going there.

> and (d) [and this is the killer] vampires by

>You have to come into the story with a little something!  Did you want the
>story to completely explain absolutely every vampire convention?  You got
>the "ye must have faith" stuff, there was the explanation that they were
>really humans from the future that had evolved into this form due to chemical
>pollution... What more would have satisfied you?

Well, consistent usage (see State of Decay) within the series and a real
purpose for their existence.


>> failing to adequately explore *any* of these within its own plot and theme
>> is a "masterpiece."

>It was more than adequate for me Drew.  Your definition of adequacy is
>obviously much higher than mine.  Maybe another six episodes on the story
>would have satisfied you.

Maybe the destruction of the script would have satisfied me.



>Please define what was "bad acting" in this cast.  Was Millington a terribly
>acted character?  Dr Judson?  Ace?  The Doctor? Captain Sorin?  Jean and
>Phyllis?  

Yeah, that list just about covered it.

>> 
>> Coherent also implies that there's some sort of focus to the whole thing. 
>> In "Curse" the focus was notably absent. 

>You've missed the point *completely* of the focus of "Fenric."

 [a long discussion of the story which was much more interesting than the
story itself]

You've missed the point of "focus".  The idea is to take what you wrote
about in the above deleted section and translate it so that all this comes
through in the story with a maximum effectiveness.  Didn't happen for me; do
you really think that all those diverse elements made an effective focus?


>> Death of Superman issue.  UGH!


>That last word pretty much sums up what I think of your Fenric analysis.

>Steven.K.Manfred

That last word pretty much sums up what I think of Fenric!

I won't venture into more detail on this debate until I watch the episode
again.  But I do recall that I was (a) bored, (b) totally unconvinced, (c)
sickened by the lack of humanity displayed onscreen, and (d) wasting my
time.  For the sake of argument, however, I shall put myself through that
torture once more to find out if I was prejudiced by the fact that watching
it was a bloody awful experience.

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.drwho