From: sbernst@lonestar.utsa.edu (Steven M. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: Covington Cross
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:12:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: ringer.1992Oct5.221220.13383
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct4.010300.3628@reed.edu> odlin@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.183612.19859@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> overland@lonestar.utsa.edu (Michael A. Overland) writes:
>>Edward,
>>     Thank you for your closed mind oppinion.  People like you are the reason
>>that there aren't many good television shows on.  If you don't like the show,
>>then don't watch it.  I think that the show is good because it is different
>>from all of the "police story", "talk show", "lets put some people in a room
>>and see how they interact" shows.  Always remember, closed minded people,
>>such as yourself, tried to kill Star Trek in 1968 and it is still here.
>>Why not give Covington Cross a chance to get better.  Who knows, Covington
>>Cross might turn into the Star Trek of the 90's.  
>>Michael Overland  
>
>  So, an accurate list of *blatant* anachronisms in a show set in a documented
>  Historical period makes the person who posted it a close-minded idiot, the 
>  like of which would have kept us in caves or somesuch?
>
>  You, Sir, need an enema.
>
>  "Star Trek" in the late '60s was new and had never been done before.

Really?  I thought Star Trek had been described as 'Wagontrain to the stars'. I
am not sure of the actual year that Wagontrain came out, but to have been
said it would make sense that Wagontrain came first; i.e: Star Trek was not new.
I don't really mean to be so distastefully technichal (sp), but since that is
what usually constitutes a flame or rebuttal/refutal, so be it.

>  "Cov-
>  ington Cross" is (to borrow a phrase) no "Star Trek".  It's a Medieval
>  "Father Knows Best"...  Horrid acting (IMHO), lousy directing (IMHO),
>  execrable plots (IMHO -- Where'd the dark haired son from the pilot [run
>  three times...] go, anyway?), and painful anachronisms (no opinion necessary
>  since it's truth).  There's nothing original here, and nothing (IMHO) worth
>  watching UNLESS it gets better.  So I, like Edward, am not going to waste

Good point, if you don't care for the show, don't watch it, no one will 
force you to.  Yet you shant know if it improves unless you watch.... The 
choice is yours... I think my attraction to the show is the fact that it 
reminds me of Star Trek to a degree...  I am partial to the show also because
of its midevil (SP) setting...  TV doesn't do too many period shows... I, for 
one, enjoy the change.

>  my time.  You are free to if you like.  I'm hardly going to try to get it
>  cancelled... It'll get that if no one watches it.  Are you, Michael, going 
>  to force us to watch it?  If so, it is *you* who are closed-minded.
>

Actually Iain, 
	I wasn't under the impression that Mr. Overland was going to force
anything upon anyone.   I appreciate you not attempting to get it cancelled,
the show is a refreshing changei, IMHO, from the Sitcom hell that American TV
delights in bombarding us with...

>  No, I'll amend the "nothing worth watching" line:  The costumes are ex-
>  cellent, if inaccurate at times.
>
>  Come right down to it, this is a TV show and nothing more.  Watch it if you
>  want to.  I won't.
>
>  Enjoy.

Thank you, I plan to enjoy the show immensely... 


>-- 
> --------------------------------- Iain Odlin ---------------------------------
>                  10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
>                                 odlin@reed.edu
> ------------------ A day without sunshine is like... night? ------------------

					Steven Bernstein


-- 
===================================> "It ain't much I'm askin', If you want the
UTSA: sbernst@lonestar.utsa.edu    | The truth... Here's to the future, for the
PORTAL: Interlocker@cup.portal.com | dreams of youth!"-Queen: I Want it ALL!!
-- The opinons expressed above are mine and are subject to being totally WRONG--