From: jogle@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Space Rangers !!Spoilers (I guess)!!
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:08:08 GMT

In article <mumble> pjm6z@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Dave Lister) writes:

>Plot points of the pilot of Space Rangers discussed below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[...]
>I can't believe you like this garbage better than Deep Space Nine.  Although
>DS9 had some flaws with the two hour premiere none of them were as bad
>as the problems with Space Rangers.  Let's look at some of them.
>
>1) They used computers to draw the ship of the Space Rangers.  Thus 
>   we never got to see the kind of shot a model can give (my guess is that
>   the ship design isn't quite completely drawn or finished).  They
>   did the Hope Fort (or whatever) in computer animation as well making it
>   almost too cartoony. 

Considering what the special effects would have looked like if done
with models on the same budget, I'll take the computer effects;
cartoony over cheezy any day!

> 2) They had to put in a plot point of humans better than machines.  
>    However, when the time for the android to fail it was so ridiculous
>    that my father and I were left laughing.  Seriously, my 486 could
>    analyze all the parts that the bad guy divided into.  This is supposed 
>    to be taking place in the 22nd century, we have mutli-process computers
>    now.  You mean to tell me the android couldn't process more than one
>    input or task at once?  What did they give him for a brain, an old
>    Atari computer?

As soon as they revealed that the android was up to no good, I knew
that they'd get rid of him in such a way to show that humans were
better.  But at least it wasn't a logic problem that did him in, like
the way Kirk would always defeat the alien supercomputers back in the
original Trek.

>  3) This goes along with the second point.  If this is so many years
>     in the future that we have outposts on distant planets and have
>     contacted and befriended different aliens, our "police" would
>     not have the same semi-automatic or automatic guns we do now.
>     Strapping a flashlight onto the gun doesn't make it a futuristic
>     weapon.  I was willing to overlook this until the guy was boxing
>     up the droid with a hammer and nails.  Don't you think that there
>     would be a more efficient method of fastening wood, at least use
>     a nail gun.

On the guns, I don't mind them too much; maybe lasers or whatever
would come next in personal weapons development are just too
inefficient (and probably too expensive, which seems to be the shows
excuse for everything).  I do hope that we will eventually see some
high-tech weapons on this show.

As for the hammer and nails, I was surprised to see a wooden box in
the first place!

>  4) The acting.  This was absolutely horrible.  Everyone seems to
>     comment that the main characters need to have conflict amongst
>     themselves to make their situation more exciting.  Maybe, but
>     their conflicts and arguements came off as over played whining.

Maybe it will get better.  The characters have promise but they'll
have to get past the 2D level to be good.

>Like another poster stated, I give this show 5 weeks maximum.  I bet
>they had a lot of people tuning in tonight.  Next week, there will
>be maybe half that audience re-tuning in, with every other sci-fi
>show (Quantum Leap, ST:TNG, ST:DS9, and Highlander) around and Babylon
>5 (please god let it be good) coming this show doesn't stand a chance.

Don't think of it as science fiction, think of it as a cop show in
space.  I went into it with that opinion and actually came close to
enjoying it.


-- 
Kansas Jim (Jim Ogle, TORG guru)                               /|
jogle@aoc.nrao.edu (NRAO-VLBA, Socorro New Mexico)           o| |-
"I'd be apathetic if I cared."                              /| \|