From: GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU (ggreg)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: complex stories
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:12:36 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

i liked B-7 for the mood, also, as well as the three dimensional character-zati
ons, some of whom were nearly despicable!  what a great crew!  even though
the show overall suffered in the writing dept, what a welcome relief it was
from the cardboard cut out archetypes of STNG, where everyone is either
a polly purebread good guy or a slathering, evil bad guy.
another cool thing about dr. who is the grand scope of the plots/stories,
even with the severe budgetary restrictions.  they never let this factor in the
 writing it seems.  what's important here is imagination, and no matter how low
 the budget, they go all over the place in just terms of locations within one
episode!  it's great.  same goes with the makeup sfx.  even when an alien
or robot or something looks stupid, at least on DR. WHO they try.  they
really use their imaginations to come up with something interesting, even
when it fails.  now look at STNG, where the have a quite considerable budget,
and except for the borg, what's with the putty/clay on the forehead/eyebrows/
bridge of nose, etc on the aliens almost every episode?  how lame can you get?
it's the most pathetic, unimaginative makeup designs i have ever seen!  hell,
in the OUTER LIMITS of the early  '60s they had far, far better monsters, some
of which stand the test of time to this day.  and they were extremely
low budget too.  STNG has no excuse.  but anyway, back to characters, what abou
t this "Q" guy?  is he a MASTER ripoff or what?  i mean, he's actually the
most likeable, fleshed out character on STNG, and he's supposed to be a bad
guy!  i say supposed to be because he's never as threatening or cruel as
the master is, never crosses that line into real evil.  which seems like a
cop out to me, 'cause he's the one really threatening villian they've got,
but i guess they're just too pussed out to make him completely unlikeable.
but it's just a show, just entertainment, so c'mon, go for it guys!
   so why is it the brits make all these cool, moody, excellently written
sf shows?   is it a british thing?  i mean we've got DR. WHO, RED DWARF,
HHGTTG, B-7, etc.  and even though the plots/characters were nothing
special, SPACE:1999 had a great, existential mood to it that i love to this
day.  (well, the first year of it, that is)  hell, RED DWARF has more mood
and feel to it than STNG, and it's a comedy!  everything in STNG is so sterile,
so spic and span, even the characters.  i mean, i'm not some brit-o-phile fan
boy who dismisses everything not made in england or by the bbc, 'cause i loved
the OUTER LIMITS, and there was MAX HEADROOM too (or was that british?)
and this BABYLON 5 thing looks like it has potential.  anyway, rant off, just
had to get it off my chest, with so many people around me everyday raving
about STNG, and completely ignoring british SF, you just gotta go off.
 
                                          ggreg
 
In article <1992Nov11.001038.5827@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
 
>
>In <1689BD2DB.GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU> GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU (ggreg) writes:
>
>>one reason i love dr. who so much:   the literary quality of writing.
>>watching a really good dr. who episode is like reading a good book.  all
>>the characters are well developed, the stories are well fleshed out and
>>very substantial.  when a show is over, i feel like i do when i've just
>>read a good novel.  and i rarely get that feeling from anything on tv or
>>movie screens!  especially something known as st:ng.  give me a break!
>>not only do i have almost every episode figured out in the first five minutes,
>>but i remember all the commercials more than the show!  why doesn't st:ng
>>hire all those out of work dr. who writers?  hell, i've seen better sf on
>>northern exposure!   sorry, i shouldn't even be mentioning this crass crap
>>on this list, but with everyone around me raving about how great st:ng is, and
>>complaining how long and boring dr. who is, well i guess people today just don'
>>t read much anymore.  they have no idea of the complex world and sensation
>>you can get from reading a good book, something, as i've mentioned earlier,
>>dr. who also gives me.  and only dr. who.  sorry for the tirade.  'tis just
>>that i really love sf (DR. WHO) and not watered down, puerile(sp?) sci-fi
>>(st:ng)  end of rant!!      -ggreg
>
>Your rant was appreciated and applauded.  It is precisely this novel-like
>quality that I missed in the McCoy stories (no flames, please--I don't want
>to reopen this topic).
>
>ST:TNG could be better but (a) there seem to be more commercials than actual
>episode time, and (b) those plots and characters are just plumb tired out.
>If there were as many Dr. Who stories set in the TARDIS as there are ST:TNG
>stories set solely on the Enterprise, Dr. Who would be damned dull as well.
>The Trekkies need to get off the ship once in a while!
>
>Also, whatever you may think of Blake's 7, the whole was definitely more
>than the sum of its parts.  I get the same novel-like quality from Blake's,
>despite the fact that one element (acting, sets/FX, stories) was usually
>mediocre.  It just has this *mood*--know what I mean?
>
>Drewcifer