From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Date: 21 Dec 92 06:29:28 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec21.031719.5141@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU writes:

>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:45:16 GMT
>Lines: 74
>Mystic writes:


>>>I didn't agree with most of your assessments of the McCoy episodes, but like
>>>you said - they're your opinions...

>Yep, they are my opinions. Glad you realise that. Some people here get very
>upset if someone dares to raise an opnion which differs from their own.

Gee, who might that be?  :)


>I know exactly what people mean when they use the word "Masterpiece". My point
>is that like so many other words in the language its value is reduced by 
>excessive, and innapropriate use. Dr Who is great television, so is Star
>Trek. If you wish to label individual stories as masterpieces, then 
>feel free. I was merely pointing out that , in my opinion, we should be more
>realistic of our assesment of a series' worth. I, Claudius was a masterpiece.
>The Third Man is a masterpiece. The Singing Detective was a masterpiece.
>What this means is that they were exceptional works of cinema and television
>made by masters of their arts. Genesis of the Daleks was wonderful, but 
>as a personal thing, I would not use the word masterpiece to describe it.
>(I hope you can understand this without feeling that you have to personally
>justify your opinion on the matter).

Hmmm..."exceptional works of cinema and television made by masters of their
arts" is at once gratingly elitist and surprisingly open to interpretation. 
That description makes Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" a
masterpiece...it's definitely exceptional, and Coppola may not be THE master
of cinema but if there are any he should be considered among them.  I
*don't*, however, consider that film a masterpiece (even though I loved it). 
The reinterpretation was just so stunningly inappropriate it rendered the
theme and tone of the original book null and void.  I think that a word's
value is also reduced by inappropriate DEFINITION.

So let's consult the master of language definition, our old friend Webster. 
Hmmmm....

"masterpiece: a piece of work presented to a medieval guild as evidence of
qualification for the rank of master."

Not likely to be tossed around today, is it?  Let's read further....

"2: a work done with extraordinary skill; esp: a supreme intellectual or
artistic achievement."

That sounds like what you want, and rules out Dracula as well.  But I'm not
so sure it rules out Dr. Who...it all depends on perspective.  Do you have
perspective, sir?
 
>As far as Macbeth is concerned, I have never met anybody who thought that
>one of the greatest works of the human imagination was "stupid". Know 
>ye of such a person? 

Big non-sequitur there.  I don't consider Macbeth one of the greatest works
of the human imagination.  I do consider it one hell of a play, though...

And yes, I know many people who find it stupid.  There are some aspects
which don't quite gel.  I don't find it stupid, but who are you and I to
say?

(Apologize for that poor grammar.)

>Dr Who has gotten great respective for what it has done. So has TNG. I
>would like it back on the air, just as would other fans, and I would like
>it to be given a fair deal, with a full 24-26 episode season. But I 
>don't run the BBC, and the people who do don't seem to give a stuff about
>what the public wants.

"Respective?"


>I like John Delancie as Q. I like the character as he portrays it, but I
>dislike the idea. Q clearly is not allpowerful as he would not have to
>answer to the continuum if he were. He also does not keep his word.
>He promised to never visit the Enterprise again, and he did. But this
>is secondary. I don't like the idea of an alien like Q. Just how did Q
>get to be so powerful? Where does this power come from? And just how many
>superpowerful races of pure energy are there? I find the idea ridiculous
>and rather cheap. Can't think of a plot? stick a new race of super powerful
>aliens in! These are my opnions.

They are ludicrous.  Q is all-powerful for a significant thematic reason:
give the best ship in the galaxy an enemy it must OUTWIT.  The origins of
his powers were not explained because they didn't NEED to be.  What's
important to the theme is that he does possess those powers.  Oh, do try and
look beyond the literal, won't you?


>Now this is silly. We know the Time Lords are the most powerful race in the
>Whoniverse because we have so often been told they are by the Doctor and
>others. The Tharils needed a TimeLord, and Romana did the job for them.

Oh, come ON!  Why would the Doctor always be right, and why *wouldn't* he
think *his* people were the most advanced?  We don't know anything of the
kind.

>Why would the Tharils need a Time Lord? Whether the Time Lords could defeat 
>Sutekh is debatable. The Doctor said that they couldn't but he may have been
>exagerating the threat to impress Sarah. But the Osirians are extinct in 

And before he was always right about things, and always truthful.  Be
consistent!

>any case. The Daleks had crude Time Travel technology and wanted an artifact
>from ancient Gallifrey to improve their technology. In Trial of A TimeLord,
>the doctor says the Daleks , Sonatrans and Cybermen are "still in the nursery
>compared to us", and the TLs have had ten million years of absolute power.
> The Toymaker would hardly
>be a concern to them. The Black and white Guardians are not a race, and we don'teven know what they are. The Eternals were banished to the void by the white 
>guardian, and were insubstantial creatures anyway. The Mara couldn't even defeat the Doctor, a single Time Lord. Omega and the Master are Time Lords so they
>hardly count. 

>I do not wish to get into another Time Lord debate. Regardless of what
>one thinks of the scripts that the Time Lords have been given, we have been
>told that they are the oldest and most powerful civilisation in the universe,
>and the Time Lord president is more powerful" than anyone else in the known
>universe" (Borusa, Invasion of Time). I like few Time Lord stories, but 
>a race that can customise stars and time loop planets at will is not to be
>taken lightly. I just wish that the shows writers hadn't decided to 
>portray them as a bunch of doddering nincompoops in the "Deadly Assassin",
>but that is another story.
>		
>>>Mystic
>>>(alex.soto@analog.com)

>Mark C.

Mark, honestly, if you're going to extol Macbeth and make these silly
statements in the same post, include a smiley so we can laugh *with* you and
not *at* you.

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