From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: REALM OF FEAR -- OPINIONATED COMMENTS
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:07:27 GMT

In article <1afns8INN17o@aludra.usc.edu> ruzon@aludra.usc.edu (The Ruz-master) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.110508.12676@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>
>>Realm of Spoilers ahead



>>First, this is the most chilling look we get to date about what can
> go wrong with the transporter (sorry, I deleted too many lines)
>
>Transporters too often wind up as more of a writer's way to bring certain
>events about.  

I don't know about "too often", that's what the transporter was
invented for: a prop for moving plots along. In any case, the transporter
does come with its own can of worms (no pun intended), and it's
good they finally got addressed (on *canon Trek*, since some people
make such a strong distinction).


>Even "The Enemy Within" didn't do much more than that.  But
>here we get our first real taste of transporter theory, and I'm all for
>formalization of concepts that have caused too many arguments in this
>hierarchy, although I suppose the r.a.s.tech people will ask more questions
>than they answer.

Oh, is that where all the discussion went? From the net bandwidth, I was 
starting to think I was one of the eight people who saw this episode this 
week :-)


>>Unfortunately, things like plot and characterization *aren't* TNG's 
>>strong points and most of the "human issue" transportaphobia thread failed
>>for me. Several factors contributed to this.
>
>>First and foremost, Dwight Schultz was absolutely AWFUL as Barclay. I don't
>>understand what happened. When we first saw him in "Hollow Pursuits", he
>>was one of the all-too-rare TNG guest characters who could be identified
>>with because he was just "a regular guy" -- the unpretentious, vulnerable,
>>neighbor-across-the-street kind of character. True, he was eccentric, but 
>>the beauty of it was that he was "nutty in a normal way." That's hard to 
>>bend your brain around but that's *exactly* what made him so good :-) 
>>I still believe that.
>
>>In contrast, for most of "Realm", Barclay was Mr. Murdock; overdone and
>>overacted. Scenes like Barclay curling up on Troi's couch and [etc. deleted]
>
>Characters have to develop.  

I have no problem with the way the writers developed the character
(at least in the second half). I expected him to be more confident and
more acclimated, as long as I'm convinced it's the character that's
developed, not the actor. Here, I found Schultz's hamming a couple of
orders of magnitude out of line.


>Recurring characters even more so because we don't
>get to see their day-to-day lives like we do the rest of the crew.  In "The
>Nth Degree" we see Barclay suddenly dropping his fear and nervousness about
>*anything* and taking the big-E for a joyride.  

'Twasn't really Barclay.

>I have wondered what the next
>Barclay episode would be like, given the previous two, and I got what I
>expected.  An officer who was much better at interacting with the real world
>and facing his fears, but nervous just the same.  Unfortunately, one great
>experience cannot give you enough adrenalin to keep it up forever.

I would have accepted "nervous". Here, we got neurotic to the nth degree.
Hence, my charge of overacting.

>
>>Scriptwise, the characterization of Barclay does a nice recovery
>>about halfway through when he proactively puts himself through the
>>transporter effect again to recreate the worms, and makes useful
>>suggestions during the investigation. *This*, at least, represents
>>a logical step up from "Hollow Pursuits" and it's done subtlely enough
>>so that it didn't feel defensive. That, I approved of wholly.
>
>And I approved of the scene with O'Brien where he finally remembered he had
>rank and pulled it.  

Me too.


>Of course, there seems to be either a costuming problem
>or something changed (is "retconning" the word?) with Chief O'Brien, but 
>that's beside the point.

Other than that O'Brien was actually *useful* for a change, I didn't notice.

>>Characterization "throwaway scenes" ranged all over the scale (I did
>>say "schizophrenic.") The O'Brien "spider story" pushed my paranoia button
>>because it looked like yet another "let me tell you a story" schtick and
>>an long-winded one at that. But it did a nice recovery at the end when
>>O'Brien introduced Barclay to his pet spider. Fun wrapup there. 
>
>So where's the "throwaway scenes" that you didn't like?  Or are they in the
>next paragraph (the one I deleted)?

Yep.


>>Unfortunately, the bad scenes stand out more than the good: 
>
>This, I believe, is the major beef I have with the Opinionated Comments.  Not
>that they're different than my views, but that here the bad scenes will
>*always* stand out more than the good.  Oh well.

Gotta do something to stay unique :-)


>>Plotwise, the mystery-ship subplot wasn't bad as far as tacked on
>>science menace subplots go. It had some atmosphere, as I mentioned above,
>>but suffered from a rushed ending as often. Barclay's deductive flash
>>seems just too easy to me, and Worf and Beverly were awfully quick to jump
>>on his orders ("grab 'em and hold on.") The ending was also predictable
>>as hell -- anyone who couldn't figure out that the worms were really
>>the missing crew after the first act just wasn't trying.
>
>Actually, the four missing crewmembers slipped my mind for most of the 
>episode, which is why I wound up liking it so much.  And I *was* trying:  

Oh well. The minute LaForge examined the explosion debris in the transporter,
it became crystal clear to me (of course, seeing the worms in the preview
may have had something to do with this).



>Worf's finally having a great season!

So far. As long as they keep the RotStinko child away from him (and us),
the old Worf might be back to stay (more than makes up for the apparent
departure of SuperTroi)


>>  Overall:    C  (very, *very* uneven. Sigh.)
>
>Once again I disagree.  I think this episode was a very worthy successor to
>"Family" and "Darmok," as 2nd episodes who, in their own quiet way, turned
>out rather excellently.

Well "Family" gets a B, and I'm still silent on "Darmok". We'll see.


>Some other points I wish to mention:
>
>* Troi finally wins the Starfleet Office Bitch of the Week Award.  Who does
>  she think she is relieving Lt. Barclay of duty?    She's never done that
>  before.  

She's never run into a Barclay before.



>* A friend of mine believed that the shots of the Enterprise near the plasma
>  trail were taken from the fourth(?) season premiere where the visiting 
>  scientist tries to destroy Wesley's Nannites before they destroy his
>  experiment.  I can't believe I can't remember the name.

"Evolution", and it was the 3rd season premiere. Yes, I believe it was the
same shot.


>[PS I just remembered that I don't know if it's correct protocol to delete the
>reviewer's .sig on the first reply.  Sorry if I offended, Atsushi.]

Don't know if it's "correct" protocol but I usually delete it.

                       .        
 :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .:   :.:
:::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:: :.:::: :
-------------------------- -------------------.------ ------------------------
Kanamori's Episode Ratings: (last episode rated: "Time's Arrow Part II")
  "I keep telling you, there *is* no plot." -- Guinan.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current