From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: r.a.s.c. readers can never be satisfied
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 02:55:54 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)

In article <tlm1.717568116@Ra.MsState.Edu>, tlm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Terry Matula) writes:
> I only follow this group lightly.  I'll tell you why in a second.
> 
> I just watched TAII, and enjoyed it.  It was fun and entertaining.
> spoilers ahead...
> 
> 
> 


> There will always be stuff that is not explained on the shows.  There may
> even be some stuff that can't be expained(it is science _FICTION_).  It
> just seems that some people here on r.a.s.c. can never be satisfied.

    Of course, not everyone will be satisified.  Everyone's entitled
to their own opinions.   Still, some people must think that TNG
is borderline on being very good since there aren't too many shows
where so much discussion is generated.   When it falls short, people
are naturally unhappy.

    I have found that reading the reviews actually makes one look
for the specifics.   It's easy to say "I liked the show" or "I hated
it" without being able to say anymore.   People who review have to
think about why a show is good or why it's bad, what worked, and
what didn't.   The casual viewer tends to see shows in bits and
pieces, and if certain bits are entertaining right now, then
it's OK for it to be somewhat inconsistent with what happened before.
But this is typically not OK with a reviewer.

    For example, I would have to agree that the aliens bit didn't
make much sense.  OK, we know that they feed off of energy, but then
what?  Why is it OK to stop the aliens now, and in other cases
it's not OK?   Now, it might be easy to dismiss this because one
likes to see Twain in action, but surely the aliens should have played
a more important role than a side one.  

    I aslo felt that the show again ran a little short.  With fifteen
minutes left they had to get Picard back, try to destroy the alien
portal, and get Twain back.  Of course, they did this in the fifteen
minutes, but it seemed a little quick.  

> 
> I only follow this group lightly, because I found out that I can enjoy the
> shows much more if I don't read all the critisms posted here.  If there
> was something kinda flakey that I missed, well so much the better.  I
> really don't care to have all the "errors" and plot "holes" pointed out to
> me.  I really like almost all of the shows.  Its more of a feeling than a
> simple count of errors and inconsistencies. 

   I think that's fine.  I've enjoyed shows before and didn't notice
plot flaws, and it is certainly easier to criticize than to praise.
For example, I would find it immensely interesting to see what
the main reviewers would have done with Part 2.   We almost never
get to see, "Well, if I wrote the second part, here's what I would
do".  I don't think it detracts from the reviews.  I think the
process of reviewing and creating can be separated (for example,
you don't have to be able to paint to like or dislike paintings
and say why), and being good in one doesn't mean being good in
the other.   Still, I would like to hear what kind of fixes 
could be made so that one gets an idea of what kind of vision of
Trek a reviewer expects.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu