From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: 3 in 1 Opinionated Comments (1st season episodes)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 14:49:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.225707.1834@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>Oboy, oboy!  I can deal with both Michael and Atsushi at once!  :-)

It's been a long time.


>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>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."
>
>Agreed on the former, if not the latter.
>
>>>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. 
>
>After "Qpid", I'd have agreed they took a wrong turn, and I still think so.
>I think "Duelling Q's" had and has a *great* deal of potential, though, and
>I'm sorry it won't be around.

It may come around next season. The concept sounds rather light to me but
we won't know until/if we see it.


>>>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.  
>
>Quite true; and I found that much of it interesting.  It's nice in some 
>ways to realize that some of these characters don't know any more about
>each other than you do.  Of course, it's also frustrating in a way, because
>it tends to make things more blatant (e.g. the horrid Yar speech in the 
>courtroom).

"Tends to make things more blatant?" I can see that being a logical 
consequence of starting out with a raw set of characters at the beginning 
if you're doing a typical sitcom where you have to grab an audience with
a gimmick in your first 2.5 outings or face the big network axe.

Without that problem, though, you could flesh out the characters more
subtlely and slowly and let the revelations come at a natural time instead
of grafting it on. TNG was in a unique position to do this since its
survival was all but guaranteed. If they'd started out emphasizing strong
plots over characters at the beginning, and threw out little bits and pieces
and let the audience infer much of the characterization, I think it would
have worked better. Then later on, you could do strong character stories
and the viewers would buy into the characterizations more because they
would feel (rightly or wrongly :-) that it was part their idea. Or to
put it another way, "leave 'em WANTING to know more about the characters
who've been part of such strong plots; then they'll appreciate it more
you give it to them."

Instead, they started out with two "here are a lot of facts about
the characters" episodes and a lot of it *was* blatant. Of course, there's
the opposing factor that they were competing against the memory of the TOS
characters who had a big headstart on character delineation -- given
that, it's understandable why they'd want to get at least the basic
characterizations out the door as quickly as possible.


>>>Much more satisfying, I think.  
>
>Um...you're not quite being fair here.  I'd definitely agree WNMHGB is far
>better than EaF; but as you say, WNMHGB is probably one of TOS's best
>pieces.  Virtually no one considers EaF a shining moment for TNG.  Just 
>because
>something was done badly in spots doesn't mean the technique behind it is
>somehow innately poorer.

True enough.


>>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). 
>
>I don't quite agree.  Troi, until very recently, had done nothing, I agree, 
>and
>with very rare exceptions, Geordi was a cipher.  (And Riker, except for a 
>few spots here and there like BOBW1, didn't have a lot of definition 
>either.  Still doesn't in some ways.)  

>On the other hand, I find it hard to
>accept any claim that Picard, Data, Worf, and Wes have gone nowhere; and
>even Bev's been fleshed out quite a bit, IMO.

Wes is definitely way ahead of where he started (although I have to say
he couldn't go much lower than where he started.) Picard went high
on the Borg thread, but after FAMILY, all traces of it disappeared. I
don't recall any significant developments since then.



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