From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Was TOS really that bad? (Re: TOS actors)
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:27:36 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug27.070719.5334@adx.adelphi.edu> ricky@adx.adelphi.edu (Ricky Glass) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.045603.24039@cs.tu-berlin.de> hal@cs.tu-berlin.de (Eberhart Adam) writes:
>
>>I absolutely disagree with your degradation of TOS. (btw my wife too)
>There was no degradation stated, it was just a fact the the TOS actors
>were/are not noted for thier acting ability.  In addition, the show
>never intended to do that.  It was sci-fi all the way.

A number of TOS  actors were very well regarded when they went onto the
show.  DeForest Kelly played in a number of old westerns, and his portrayal
of one of the Clampetts in some OK Corral film was rated very highly.  He
was considered more than competent before he went on Star Trek.

In addition, William Shatner's early career was very respected, and he was
a very sought-after young actor.  That is why he was in class productions
like Judgment at Nuremburg and The Bros. Karamazov (sp?).  He was in a
major civil rights movie called "The Outsider" (I think) for the same
reason.  Also, "For the People" was a very classy series that the critics
raved about--including Shatner--but nobody watched it.  He was on "The
Defenders" twice--another classy old show--because he was considered very
good.  

The rest of the cast was unknown when the show premiered, but Shatner and
Kelly were definitely not considered marginal when they went on the show.
Shatner was considered class, and for good reason:  I saw those shows, and
he was good.

I read somewhere that he had a near nervous-breakdown at some point.  If
that was so, it would help explain some of his more outrageous recent
performances.
>>Even *much* better actors as the present ones could not overact the
>>shapelessness and paleness of the figures in TNG.
>Have you ever watched, I mean really watched TNG?
>
>As far as the acting, it is excellent.  I really don't see much better
>as on TV.

Afraid I have to agree with both of you about TNG:  the characters bore me
to tears, as do many of the plots; but the actors do a good job, and no one
(except Majel Barrett) chews the scenery.

(BTW:  I have a friend who watches all TNG shows and tapes them.  I wait
till she lets me know if one is worth watching and then see her tape.  I
can't handle the show any other way--it's too uneven to my taste.)

>>In TOS there have been characters as you and me they have been
>>identificable
>In all the years of watching TOS, never did I find myself relating to
>characters.  The show was pure sci-fi enjoyment.

Now I have that experience of TNG.

>> -  but a moaning supersensual counsellor is not my first
>>choice for good sci-fi.
>A 'supersensual' counsellor *is* my first choice, in every sense of the
>word.  Btw, what episode did she moan?  I *must* see that one. :-)
>
>I like the sound of that word 'supersensual'. :-)

I must say that the counselor drives me up a wall, too.  Until I got on the
net, I could not fathom why she was on the show--now it is much clearer.
;->
But if she's ever found floating outside an airlock with a note that says
"I feel PAINNNNNNNNNNNNN" pinned to her low-cut frock, you might want to
check on where I was in the moments preceeding her demise!  

NOTE:  For an succinct explanation of how Betazoids came to be on
starships, and other insights related to the changing of the guard and the
Star Fleet generation-gap, send e-mail to the above and request "The Great
American Star Trek Novel:  Where No *Man* Has Gone Before."  It's the
long-awaited Society of Feminist Trekkies novel.
>-- 
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> (Dr\.\ )?R(\.|(ic((hard)|(ky))))\ Glass  {
>         printf("%s (%s)\n", "Ricky Glass", "ricky@adx.adelphi.edu"); }
> /* recursive (adj.) See recursive.  ("The Devils DP Dictionary") */
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current