From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: 3 in 1 Opinionated Comments (1st season episodes)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:49:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.184127.1427@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <1992Apr7.212105.18779@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT
>>---------------------
>
>>My one line impression of E@F: "technically proficient."
>
>My summary review of it, four-plus years ago, was "Not bad.  It shows promise.
>I wish they'd axed the Q guy, though."
>
>Four-plus years later, that line could actually apply to the series as a 
>whole.
>It's not BAD, but it's not very challenging or exciting or thoughtful either.
>It shows promise, but it's promise that is rarely fulfilled.  

I'm inclined to agree, albeit working with a limited sample. So far,
my average for season 1 is probably a low "C", which is as good or 
*better* than my average for season 5. The show started out mediocre,
climbed up during season 3 and 4, then settled back into complacency again.


>And I still wish they'd axed the Q guy. :-)

After Q-Pid, and seeing Paramount's future ideas for the guy (DUELLING Q's),
I fully agree. Q's okay for comic relief but as a serious villain, he's
way too campy and overblown -- doesn't come near meriting all the attention
he's got, IMO.


>All in all, I really do NOT feel that TNG has evolved very much in nearly
>five years of episodes.  Now, this in itself is not bad.  It's the fact that
>where they STARTED was pretty mediocre itself.  (Trek Classic didn't evolve
>much either, but it started at a MUCH higher plateau.)
>
>>The character bits are okay for a crew who's just getting to know each
>>other.
>
>I find it very instructive to compare the characters in "EaF" to those in
>"Where No Man Has Gone Before", because the two episodes take completely
>different approaches the characters handling.
>
>"EaF" basically starts with a clean slate and a bunch of nonentities, and
>takes us through the motions of introducing us to the characters.  However,
>it turns out that none of the characters have a substantial background or
>strong personalities evidence, so it left me with a sort of "eh" feeling.
>
>"WNMHGB" doesn't deal with the number of characters that "EaF" does, but
>the three it focuses on - Kirk, Spock and Mitchell, are well fleshed out
>for characters who have never appeared before.  We're basically dropped in the
>middle of an already existing set of relationships, with fairly strong and
>complex emotions going on.  Much more satisfying, I think.  (Heck, I think
>it's one of Star Trek's best episodes.)

I think there's something to be said for EaF's approach as well --
seeing relationships *develop* can be quite interesting for me (as opposed
to coming in the middle.) The problem is that the TNG characters never 
*did* develop to a really satisfying degree -- Wes and Troi stopped being
so annoying and there are some physical changes (a la Worf). But on the
whole, the season 5 incarnations seem to be largely a debugged version
of the season 1 incarnations rather than a crew that has developed
substantial ties and history over the 4.5 year mission.


>
>>	 I especially liked the part where Picard tested Riker.
>
>Which part was this?  I sure hope you don't mean the saucer docking scene.
>Yecch.

More about Picard's "hazing" of Riker and the bit about letting the captain
beam down on an Away Team. 


>>								A quick
>>rundown on the characters:
>
>>   Picard: Hmm... he doesn't seem to have changed much over the years.
>>     At least, he didn't strike me as fundamentally different from season 5.
>
>I don't think that he's had many lasting changes, either.  A few episodes
>have had him rise above his blandness, but otherwise he generally strikes
>me as a walking preaching machine.

Yes -- those rare times are a pleasure but they don't build on each other.
I think TNG's characterizations are as episodic as their plots :-)


>>   Riker: Again, I didn't detect much difference -- other than that he's
>>     visually unrecognizable without the beard :-)
>
>Looks more plastic, too. :-)  The only times Riker really came alive for me
>were in "Peak Performance" and "Best Of Both Worlds" Part I.

And Frakes (not Riker) came alive for me in THE HOST, as well as whenever
he gets behind the camera. Ah well.


>>   Worf: Geez, has he been breathing helium or something? I guess Dorn
>>     hasn't gotten into the role yet (of course, he has less to do in
>>     this outing than any other character.)
>
>I understand that Worf was a VERY late addition to the cast, so he was
>probably grafted onto the first several episodes just to keep him visible
>until they finally did something with him.

Ah... *that* explains why he's been a glorified stage prop the first 6
episodes. I hope to see a good Worf episode soon.


>>THE NAKED NOW
>>-------------
>
>>I don't know if TNN was intended as a character development story or as
>>a parody of TNT. Either way, it fails utterly.
>
>I'm "the great apologist" for this episode.  I still think it's one of the
>best of the series.  Maybe BECAUSE it was lifted from Trek Classic.  I dunno.
>But the plot device I thought worked fine, and I think this episode gave us
>a LOT of character information on which to build (I think it's one of TNG's
>great character study episodes).  Unfortunately, the mediocrity of
>characterization that followed has made "TNN" seem rather out-of-place in
>the TNG canon, and it looks the worse for it.  Still, I found and find
>the episode a lot of fun to watch.

Egads. Oh well, I was against practically the whole net on the character
aspects of CONUNDRUM so I'm not surprised the same has happened here.
The character info on Geordi and Data were at worst, non-irritating --
but that of Wesley and the women struck me as TV stereotypes #1 and #5.



>>The portrayal of the women is atrocious. It can be summed up in three words:
>>sex, sex and sex. Instead of building Troi, Beverly and Tasha, this episode
>>trivializes them to the worst of TV stereotypes.
>
>Oh, I don't know.  Yar's behavior isn't something I can really defend (again,
>it was there more for humor), but I think that Crusher's and Troi's bits
>both reeked of intriguing ideas.  Troi's line "Wouldn't you like to be alone
>with me, with me in your mind?" evokes, for me, images of a rich and
>fascinating Betazoid culture and some really interesting background for her
>and Riker.  The sexual undertones were a plus, I felt.  Alas, none of that
>ever came to pass, and I think that both Riker and Troi are lesser
>characters for it.
>
>Crusher's bits I think both hinted at something going on between her and
>Picard, or something that she wanted to be (which also was never expounded
>upon), and also showed a great strength of will on her part (something we
>also see present in Picard).  This could have been taken in any number of
>interesting directions (e.g., a "Fatal Attraction" one), but never was.

'Fraid I have to disagree. The romance between workers line has been
used *way* too much in TV and movies to be interesting to me. If they'd
gone for a less conventional relationship, I might have been intrigued
but as it was, the emphasis on sex dominated all.


>Maybe I just like "TNN" for might-have-beens?

Possibly.



[No feedback on CODE OF HONOR: I guess everyone found it as forgettable
 as I did :-)]


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

Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.misc:3045 rec.arts.startrek.current:4686 comp.sys.mac.hypercard:1821