From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: 3 in 1 Opinionated Comments (1st season episodes)
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:57:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Oboy, oboy!  I can deal with both Michael and Atsushi at once!  :-)

kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.184127.1427@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Apr7.212105.18779@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:

>>>ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT
>>>---------------------
>>
>>>My one line impression of E@F: "technically proficient."
>>
>>My summary review of it, four-plus years ago, was "Not bad. It shows promise.
>>I wish they'd axed the Q guy, though."

Agreed on the former, if not the latter.

>>And I still wish they'd axed the Q guy. :-)

>After Q-Pid, and seeing Paramount's future ideas for the guy (DUELLING Q's),
>I fully agree. 

After "Qpid", I'd have agreed they took a wrong turn, and I still think so.
I think "Duelling Q's" had and has a *great* deal of potential, though, and
I'm sorry it won't be around.

>Q's okay for comic relief but as a serious villain, he's
>way too campy and overblown -- 

Even in "Q Who"?  I didn't find him either there; it's the only time I've
found him convincingly menacing.  "Hide and Q" had him a bit overdone in 
several spots, to be sure, but that's apparently something you'll talk
about *next* week.  :-)

>>I find it very instructive to compare the characters in "EaF" to those in
>>"Where No Man Has Gone Before", because the two episodes take completely
>>different approaches the characters handling.
>>
>>"EaF" basically starts with a clean slate and a bunch of nonentities, and
>>takes us through the motions of introducing us to the characters.  

Quite true; and I found that much of it interesting.  It's nice in some 
ways to realize that some of these characters don't know any more about
each other than you do.  Of course, it's also frustrating in a way, because
it tends to make things more blatant (e.g. the horrid Yar speech in the 
courtroom).

>>However,
>>it turns out that none of the characters have a substantial background or
>>strong personalities evidence, so it left me with a sort of "eh" feeling.

Sigh...let's just leave this at the deadlock it's destined to be.

>>"WNMHGB" doesn't deal with the number of characters that "EaF" does, but
>>the three it focuses on - Kirk, Spock and Mitchell, are well fleshed out
>>for characters who have never appeared before. We're basically dropped in the
>>middle of an already existing set of relationships, with fairly strong and
>>complex emotions going on.  

Agreed.  Unfortunately, I think this is very near the best it got so far as
that very set of relationships is concerned.  (I'll leave it at that, 
though.)

>>Much more satisfying, I think.  

Um...you're not quite being fair here.  I'd definitely agree WNMHGB is far
better than EaF; but as you say, WNMHGB is probably one of TOS's best
pieces.  Virtually no one considers EaF a shining moment for TNG.  Just because
something was done badly in spots doesn't mean the technique behind it is
somehow innately poorer.

>I think there's something to be said for EaF's approach as well --
>seeing relationships *develop* can be quite interesting for me (as opposed
>to coming in the middle.) 

Exactly.

>The problem is that the TNG characters never 
>*did* develop to a really satisfying degree -- Wes and Troi stopped being
>so annoying and there are some physical changes (a la Worf). 

I don't quite agree.  Troi, until very recently, had done nothing, I agree, and
with very rare exceptions, Geordi was a cipher.  (And Riker, except for a 
few spots here and there like BOBW1, didn't have a lot of definition 
either.  Still doesn't in some ways.)  On the other hand, I find it hard to
accept any claim that Picard, Data, Worf, and Wes have gone nowhere; and
even Bev's been fleshed out quite a bit, IMO.

>>>   Riker: Again, I didn't detect much difference -- other than that he's
>>>     visually unrecognizable without the beard :-)
>>
>>Looks more plastic, too. :-)  The only times Riker really came alive for me
>>were in "Peak Performance" and "Best Of Both Worlds" Part I.

>And Frakes (not Riker) came alive for me in THE HOST, as well as whenever
>he gets behind the camera. 

Agreed here, no question.  The only director for TNG I know of that's 
batting 1.000.

>>I understand that Worf was a VERY late addition to the cast, so he was
>>probably grafted onto the first several episodes just to keep him visible
>>until they finally did something with him.

>Ah... *that* explains why he's been a glorified stage prop the first 6
>episodes. 

Quite so.

>I hope to see a good Worf episode soon.

Keep hoping.  I can't think of anything for most of the season.  Worf didn't
come into his own, I think, until Tasha freed up room for him by conveniently
dying.

>>>THE NAKED NOW
>>>-------------
>>
>>>I don't know if TNN was intended as a character development story or as
>>>a parody of TNT. Either way, it fails utterly.
>>
>>I'm "the great apologist" for this episode.  I still think it's one of the
>>best of the series.  

And most people think you're loony for it.  :-)  I enjoyed it, but I didn't
even have it on my "best" list by the end of the *first* season, let alone
now.

Tim Lynch