From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:42:24 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec17.063101.22631@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU writes:


>One small point I would like to make. Please stop refering to stories as
>"episodes". "The Happiness Patrol" was a 3 part serial, not an episode. I
>realise you may have seen it that way, but that is your problem.

(sigh) I knew *someone* would get around to this tired complaint again.  OK. 
I'm sure most Dr. Who fans realize that the stories were originally
broadcast as episodes.  I also realize that the stories are taken as stories
even by people who have seen them as episodes.  I also realize that most
Americans have never seen them as episodes.

The point I want to make is that unless we are talking about individual
episodes--which many of us are incapable of doing, having seen them only as
complete stories--an insistence on distinction between "episode" and
"serial" is unnecessary.  The term "episode" without the addition of an
ordinal number is clearly not referring to an *episode* anyway.

So you see, this distinction may be technically correct, but is hardly
necessary for clarification.  We all knew what he was talking about, and so
did you.  So knock off the pedantic "small points", will you?
 

>I thought "Rememberance" was an inspired Dalek story. It seemed to explore 
>the nature and history of the Daleks more than most stories. "Fenric"
>was perfectly comprehensible to me. The fact that you couldn't follow it 
>is your problem, as I sure you are well aware.

"You must be several light-years out of your skull, baby."--Z. Beeblebrox

So "Remembrance" explored Dalek history more than most stories, eh?  More
than "Genesis of the Daleks"?  More than "Destiny" (nature)?  More than "The
Daleks", even?  No, no, no, no, no.  This was actually not a bad story (I
was truly surprised) but not for that reason.

You're certainly fond of making things other peoples' problems.  "Fenric"
was perfectly comprehensible all right...a perfectly comprehensible YAWNER.



>"The Twin Dilemma" was truly dreadful I thought. But "I rank "Androzani"
>as one of the best stories I have ever seen. That is my opinion and I do 
>not wish to argue it.

(whew)

>Getting back to the original subject, one thing I believe has always 
>worked in Dr Who's favour is that it has never had Star Trek's Q syndrome.
>I like John Delancie, but I think the idea of Q sucks rocks. Roddenberry
>had a weakness for these ridiculous omnipotent aliens who crop up every
>other episode. For me they take Star Trek away from Science fiction into
>Fantasy, like "Lord of the Rings". Just how many omnipotent aliens are 
>there out there? The Organians, Trelaine's people, the thing from "The
>Survivors", the Q, Melkotians, Jedi........Well okay not Jedi, but
>how many are there? To the people at Paramount I say, stop with these
> omnipotent aliens. They are stupid. How did they get to be omnipotent?
>On Dr Who they have powerful aliens like Sutekh, but Sutekh was not 
>omnipotent. I find an adversary like Sutekh far more interesting and credible,
>than one like Q. Or is that just me? again the most powerful race in Dr Who
>are the Time Lords, but they are not perfect beings of pure energy like the 
>Organians. They are flawed beings who can be killed. To me that makes them 
>more interesting. Perfect societies do not make good stories.

Au contraire!  Q is one of the best things about ST:TNG.  Perhaps the *only*
good thing, apart from Jean-Luc Picard (finally!  an Enterprise captain who
can ACT!).  I think Q's limitations--and he does have some--are absolutely
fascinating.  And tell me, how many omnipotent aliens have you seen on TNG? 
Certainly not enough to warrant the phrase "every other episode".  I don't
even believe Q is omnipotent, which is what makes him interesting.

Perfect societies make *excellent* stories...because they are almost never
perfect, and it is the flaw which makes them interesting.  BTW, that
sentence was *totally* unrelated to the topic of omnipotent beings.


>Mark C.


Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu