Newsgroup: it.comp.console.playstation
Titolo: stirring the issues

 of those or none at all! :)
I think we're having trouble defining "crap".   If something is crap, then you don't
watch it.  Jerry Springer, Baywatch, and 90210 fall into this category.
The reason you say that McCoy is crap is that the episodes that preceded him were
better (No, wait, that was Colin Baker).  The episodes preceding him get
progressively better until you get to Pertwee, then it's debatable.
The show went downhill, like all shows do, but it's still watchable.   The X-Files
was practically a masterpiece at about season three, and it's sort of losing steam
now, four years later, but I still record it every week.      The Practice and Ally
McBeal were awesome last season, but they missed something this season.    I'm
thinking maybe Futurama isn't going to be as good eventually as it is right now.
If you guys don't get Futurama in England, I hope you get it soon.  It's a really
good show.
--
D. Aubrey White
--
Posted from 
shed.pipex.net
 [158.43.128.176]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.mailgate.org

 for the Master.
But Chang Lee (?) struck me as neither tough nor evil.
Travis


 worse failure than it was before, because it will lose so much more money.
Wha? *No market* for cheaply made science fiction? That's as may be, but
personally, if there were to be a new Who series I would prefer that it
*not* be high-budget. Sure, higher than it *was*, better technology,
cover up all the *major* holes in the special effects (some of those
aliens or weird critters were dreadful), but aside from that leave it
much the way it was. Dr. Who as a major, big-budget effort would be
near-certain (given the way the Makers of Film do these things) to lose
much or all of what made it so enjoyably what it was. Rather than see
new Who as a major, big-budget effort, I'd personally rather not see new
Who at all.
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.


 good show.
Agreed!  We've been getting the show for about a month now and it's pretty
cool.  Seeing's how  the Simpson's has occasional references to the good
Doctor, maybe Futurama will have as well.. please? :-)


 Who at all.
I dunno... who says you can't have a big budget and good stories?  Surely
the writers of the show orginially didn't base the quality of their scripts
on the special effects and budgets at hand? :-)
Catcha!
Paul


 of those or none at all! :)



I think we're having trouble defining "crap".   If
something is crap, then you don't

watch it.  Jerry Springer, Baywatch, and 90210 fall into this
category.



The reason you say that McCoy is crap is that the episodes that preceded
him were

better (No, wait, that was Colin Baker).

Hmm. Four words: 'Warriors of the Deep'. Actually, I'm inclined to
interpret your comments two ways:



1. The episodes preceding McCoy were better - no wait the episodes were
Colin Baker (and so weren't).



Long time lurkers and readers might recognise me as a Colin fan, so I'll
hold fire. I do disagree though. There are some McCoy stories I rate as
quite poor, not all Season 24 are among them, and some of them aren't
from Season 24 at all.



2. The episodes preceding McCoy etc - no wait, the episodes preceding
Colin Baker were better.



Oh, now you're spoiling me for choice! Even with those immediately
preceding Colin I disagree - Season 21 had some stories that are still in
a word, messy. 'Warriors' is a triumph of poor production over a worthy
idea; 'Resurrection of the Daleks' is a collision of half-baked ideas
that even its author (the Script Editor!) admits to be something of an
error of judgement.



Peter A.





 on the special effects and budgets at hand? :-)
Sure, you *can* have both a big budget and good stories; but it's
considerably less likely, plus it's not the stories that I was talking
about (or at least I don't think it was - my memory is horrible
sometimes). High-budget things these days tend to be top-heavy on the
special effects, and to focus on them more than they deserve, sometimes
to the detriment of the rest of the production. As I said, I don't
insist on the same kind of minimal budget I get the impression the show
originally had; but it should emphatically *not* be a *high*-budget
production, unless those in charge with final say on things have fully
in mind the spirit of the original show, and are focused on making good
Who with a large budget - rather than on making a big-budget science
fiction show. I think there's a major difference between the two.
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
--


 fiction show. I think there's a major difference between the two.
Oh yeah, definately.  If they kept the stories to the same quality they had
during it's heyday, but had the kind of money and effects something like,
say, babylon5 and star trek use it wouldn't just be us enjoying the show,
it'd be those shallow sci fi lovers who just watch sci fi shows for the eye
candy :-) :-) :-)  Heck, we might even get them to enjoy quality sci fi :-)
:-) :-)
that should stir the embers :-)


 :-) :-)
Dead on my man !!! :)
Travis


 that should stir the embers :-)
Yes, I think I agree - but my point is that, especially if you're
working in the film- and TV-making environment of today, when you've got
that kind of budget it's far too easy to *not* maintain the quality, to
get distracted just enough by the technically-great effects that you
lose the edge that makes the show great.
But if whoever made new Who *did* in fact maintain that quality, while
not letting advanced special effects run away with the show, then I
agree, it would be wonderful, great, stellar, bring it on and don't
stint on the popcorn!
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
--


 > :-) :-)
That's a very good point. If we had better special effects more people would
discover this treasure of ours.
Last I heard Star trek:TNG was at 1 million a show.... anyone know what the
current average budget is for a Star Trek:Voyager episode (or other big
sci-fi show)?


 sci-fi show)?
Hmmm, but let's not forget that shows in the Star Trek family *regularly*
resort to the kind of moralising and/or cliche-ridden schmaltz that American
audiences seem to lap up, while the rest of us proceed to stick fingers down
our throats. It's *precisely* this kind of moralising and/or cliche-ridden
schmaltz that ensures a larger-than-normal sci-fi audience for those
particular programmes.
Apologies to the Americans reading this list, but I find this to be the case
with a lot of American programming. It's what makes other *great* American
programmes like B5 such a breath of fresh air -- and conversely why they
wasn't as popular as Star Trek -- because they didn't resort to crappy
storylines and pointless moralising! Just think about it for a few moments
before replying in anger...
Indeed, I'm preaching to a more enlightened bunch of Americans on this list,
anyway. Once an American tells me that they enjoy Doctor Who, Red Dwarf &
Fawly Towers with bonus points for understanding Monty Python sketches (and
I mean actually *understanding* them!) and irony, I know I'm in good
company! ;)
Cheekily,
RI


good show.
we get it on the leading satellite/cable channel, Sky One, but it was
/years/ before the Simpsons made it to the terrestrial (ie free apart from
the TV licence) channels so who knows how long it will take...
I saw the first episode, but I rarely watch TV so I didn't keep up with it
Brax


Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans and all the other characters in the show.
and this would be a bad thing because...?
Brax
---
'Normal? Normal! What an insult - I'm never normal!'
Eye of Orion issue five, details at 
www.dellah.freeserve.co.uk
'the calibre of the writing and originality of the contents is second to
none.'
- Darren Allen, DWAS Social Secretary


 
wrote:


 




I'm thinking that they could do some really 
        cool things with Gallifrey these days.
I'm thinking 
    Gallifrey needs to be left well alone for _at least_ the first three years 
    of any potential TV revival of DW.


quite.


any new series should be Original with a capitol 'O' and 
not feature any elements from the past until its own continuity has been built 
up. Then it'd be nice to see a returning monster or two per season, and then not 
dwell on the past but treat the monster as if new with no more than 'oh yes - I 
met you once before. Beat you then and I'll beat you now!' (as opposed to 'I 
managed to wrest control of the Vanelium from you after you possessed my 
companion but because you were in league with the Daleks you were double 
crossed. I thought you were killed but it would seem blah blah 
blah...')


But for the most part nothing more than the 
Doctor and the TARDIS is required to be successful and credible.


Please God no more Master 
stories....!


to the detriment of the rest of the production.
Star Trek The Motion Picture:
oh look, the Enterprise is flying through space, ..., it is still flying
through space, ..., ah a different kind of space..., ..., pretty clouds...,
yawn...., ..., ...,
Brax
---
'Normal? Normal! What an insult - I'm never normal!'
Eye of Orion issue five, details at 
www.dellah.freeserve.co.uk
'the calibre of the writing and originality of the contents is second to
none.'
- Darren Allen, DWAS Social Secretary


 particular programmes.
Yeah, I've noticed this too.  I've always thought that nearly every, but not
_all_ star trek episodes had a 'what have we learned from today's episode
kiddies' feel to them, rather than just getting on with the show and
enjoying the story.  But if the good Doctor kept his usual bunch of script
writers, or people that had similar taste with stories, it'd still be a
great show.
On the subject of B5, it was interesting to note that last year, during a b5
convention held in Sydney, there was a fair bit of discussion about it on
some of the radio stations, whereas the tons of star trek cons there usually
are hardly get a mention anymore.
catcha!
Paul


 are hardly get a mention anymore.
I think that's because B5 has, at least in part, a non-sci-fi component to
its audience. At least, that's my take here in Sydney. Sure, there are those
who watch B5, Star Trek, Buffy, Doctor Who and anything that can have the
word "cult" wafted in its general direction... but I think there is
definitely a solid component of non-sci-fo viewers who enjoy the show
because it dealt with real human issues and didn't get caught up in sci-fi
technobabble too often.
Another interesting thing about B5 was that it portrayed Earth in a very
recognisable form, whereas the Earth of Star Trek is a bit too "out there"
for my tastes. And what about the ships? Earth has these big, clunky
cruisers that have to generate their own gravity by rotating sections --
hardly the sexy, all-powerful ships of Star Trek... in a word, B5 rocks!


 Rob wrote:
"I seem to recall a TNG
episode (someone help me out here) where there was a race of aliens, but one
of them didn't feel "male" or "female" (I can't remember which) and, in all,
it was just a clumsy illusion to homosexuality. Very embarassing, I must
say! Nevertheless, Riker still had it off with the said alien, which was a
bit weird, too..."
Yeah but the worst of it was that by the end of ep., the said alien had decided that 'it' definitely felt more like a 'she'. Just so studdly old Riker wouldn't be rememberred as a bi-boy.! What a cop out!  


 and this would be a bad thing because...?
Because they are as much a part of the history of the show as the police
box.  If not for the Daleks, Dr Who wouldn't have captured the imagination
as much as it did.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the stories without the
Daleks et al as much as the ones with, but they're the ones that people most
enjoy because they're the doctor's oldest and (arguably) most dangerous
enemies.  Severing all ties with everyone from the bbc version except the
Doctor would be like having a spinoff series from bab5 with no-one in it
except Sheridan.  Whether you liked the monsters in Doctor Who or not,
they'd have to be part of the show if it were to have the continuity from
the old series.  Unless we have an Americanised version of Dr Who that
starts from regeneration 1, like Red Dwarf (snigger :-))


 company! ;)
I enjoy Doctor Who (why else would I be here, I ask you?), I don't mind
Red Dwarf but it's not usually my style of humour, I've never seen
Fawlty Towers, and I *love* Monty Python - got about half of it
memorized, working on the rest, plan to buy it on DVD as soon as I can
get the funds. (How many people do *you* know who can recite the name of
that one particular German baroque composer?)
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
--


starts from regeneration 1, like Red Dwarf (snigger :-))
Just because the past isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why
should /not mentioning the past/ mean that we have to start with the first
Doctor again?
I think that a new series should start with the Doctor (who gives a damn
which incarnation it is!) so long as the Doctor is the Doctor, the TARDIS is
the TARDIS, and the writing, production and the lead are all great why
should
it be necessary for old foes to crop up again?
The universe is a big place and it is full of possiblities, so I think I
would feel cheated if the past is dwelt upon. New Who should be /new/
And having something new doesn't mean you have to throw out the old. The
first eight Doctors would still exist in books and one video and repeats.
Who fandom is so retrobloodyspective sometimes it is depressing.
What is so wrong with trying to be creative?
The past is the past and should remain untouched
The future is full of promise and potential and there is nothing to say that
just because something is new that the old is somehow invalidated, or will
be compromised in some way.
I like to visit the past, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Brax
---
'Normal? Normal! What an insult - I'm never normal!'
Eye of Orion issue five, details at 
www.dellah.freeserve.co.uk
'the calibre of the writing and originality of the contents is second to
none.'
- Darren Allen, DWAS Social Secretary


 Brax
Hey, Star Trek:TMP was a reunion show (not unlike the Five Doctors).  It was
a very pretty painting  though wasn't it.
Those heavy plot lines and stories were just hidden.....somewhere....I'm
sure.   8)


In a message dated 12/23/1999 7:31:22 AM !!!First Boot!!!, 
Brax...@dellah.freeserve.co.uk
 writes:
<< Who fandom is so retrobloodyspective sometimes it is depressing.
 What is so wrong with trying to be creative?
 The past is the past and should remain untouched
 The future is full of promise and potential and there is nothing to say that
 just because something is new that the old is somehow invalidated, or will
 be compromised in some way.
 
 I like to visit the past, but I wouldn't want to live there. >>
I agree wholeheartedly.  Were I to get my wish on a new Who, it would start 
out similar tothe original who, with an enegmatic alien that we know 
"nothing" about.  And then slowly over time release bits of info relating to 
the original series contunity.  I wouldn't make massive sweeping changes 
though.  The Daleks wouldn't suddenly become his bestest buddies or some 
such.  Stick to the old contunity, but only let it out little by little so 
the new audience can discover it like the "old" audience did.



What's wrong with some good morals? When Gene Roddenberry first made Star
Trek, all that the Networks were after was a sci-fi shoot'em up. He actually
gave us some good stories AND something to think about.


 Brax
Couldn't have have said it better myself.


 that one particular German baroque composer?)
One, and it's not you or me.
-s
--
Steve W Hill           "Realitywarp"
shi...@xnet.com
       and other Doctor Who fan videos
sh...@harper.cc.il.us
 
http://shill.simplenet.com/feds


 gave us some good stories AND something to think about.
*Everything's* wrong with putting such overt moralising into a show!!!
Did you read the example I gave of the ST:TNG episode where the character
couldn't decide if "it" was a he or a she? It was a ham-fisted attempt at a
homosexual storyline... and ended (as another correspondant here wrote) with
the character deciding that "it" was a she... which was lucky, considering
that Riker had already porked said alien, and we don't want him getting a
bi-boy reputation.
Now then, the point is that somewhere along the line, a writer -- for better
or worse -- has decided to have a homosexual storyline in ST. Is this
neccessary?!? Why not have some homosexual characters who fit-in with the
rest of the crew & leave it at that -- as a normal part of life? Oh no, the
moralising writers must make being homosexual *different* and *alien* to
appear in a storyline.
That's danger number one of moralising in a show.
The second danger of moralising in a show is that it portrays a very narrow
world view (usually that of the writer), using a popular TV programme as its
messenger. I don't know about you, but I find this insulting. I watch a show
to be entertained -- not have some left-wing ego trendy trying to pull a
"Marx is OK with me" storyline in the guise of some aliens who decide it
would be really great to have a farm and share their produce with each
other... NOR a right-wing dickhead writer, who creates a race of skinhead
aliens who kick the shit out of lesser species. Give me a break!
So... moralising, eh? I don't have any time for it.
RI


 bi-boy reputation.
Not that I particularly like the TNG episode "The Outcast," in truth I
think it is crap and I have to think up some way to pay you back for
having to spin thru the tape for this, but you've misrepresented the plot
here. The character, Soren, came from a species, the J'naii, whose culture
had made being feminine or masculine a crime. They brain washed those who
strayed, including Soren by the end of the episode, back into neuterdom.
It was a metaphor for the way homosexuality is treated, and was considered
to be insufficient payment for a promise the homosexual community thought
that they had, rightly or wrongly, that TNG would come out (no pun
intended) in their support.  
A more important question you raise is can a good writer turn out 
stories on subject which raise issues of import *without* putting
some of it's own opinions/morals in? (Note: a hack can and a journalist
is *supposed* to, we're talking about quality fiction here) Can you name
me one Doctor Who serial that doesn't raise, and answer, some moral 
questions?
As to newer ST shows, its not the morality that leaves them lacking,
it is the habit they have of spending 42 minutes setting up a story
and then blowing it away in an unbelievable 4 minute resolution because
they don't have the guts to do more extended part stories.
IMH(and unprofessional)O, of course.
And yes, DS9 did get away from that towards the end.
David H Tiffany


So many nits and i can only pick one. alas.
Distaste for over moralising (sp?)  has come up. Just for the record I
would like to bring up GENESIS OF THE DALEKS. I consider it enjoyable and
no less a classic, but would it have been so out of place if say Nyder
and his fellow Kaleds started goosestepping and shouted in german!?! 
Speaking to the scientist under Davros, the Doctor learns the name of the
Kaled security force; he comments to the effect the acronym was more than
two 's's and therefore took SS to a ridiculous extreme (the exact quote
eludes me at the moment).
If it is to the point, it fits, and it doesn't overwhelm a good story
(with so many more aspects that get their  moments to shine, ) then a
moral isn't so bad to take. 
Thanks for giving me a chance to rant. Until later..
Arthur Dykeman (
arthu...@juno.com
)
"...the cosmos without the Doctor
 scarcely bears thinking about"
              The Master, "The Five Doctors"


 12/24 8:08 am >>>





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !


gave us some good stories AND something to think about.
there's nothing wrong with good morals.
The difference between the morality in Doctor Who and Star Trek is that the
Doctor (I'm thinking McGann here) would exclaim 'oh please!' upon some of
the enforced morality in Star Trek. With Doctor Who it is more subtle.
Brax
---
'Normal? Normal! What an insult - I'm never normal!'
Eye of Orion issue five, details at 
www.dellah.freeserve.co.uk
'the calibre of the writing and originality of the contents is second to
none.'
- Darren Allen, DWAS Social Secretary


 You're not confusing it with that quote in The Invasion of Time are you?
Where the Sontaran commander states he is from the Sontaran Special Space
Service. >"The SSSS?," says the Doctor, "Isn't that taking alliteration a
little far?"
I believe that is what he is thinking of.
Travis


 wouldn't be Doctor Who.
Agreed.
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.


 One, and it's not you or me.
Well, if you know of one that isn't me (note here that the Pythons most
likely don't remember it well enough after all this time to actually do
it), add one to your list - I've got it down. Even wrote it out a couple
of times (MUCH harder than reciting it).


 the new audience can discover it like the "old" audience did.
Sounds fairly good to me.


 I like to visit the past, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Oh yeah, I agree.  I want to see new monsters as well, but I don't want to
forget the old ones either.  Bottom line:  Yes have new monsters, but while
we shouldn't forget the old monsters, we shouldn't rely on them to be the
foil for the Doctor's plans all the time either.  Maybe one episode in every
15-20 or something with _one_ of the old monsters in it, but forgetting the
past completely would be a great loss, in my view anyway :-)
Catcha!
Paul


 questions?
Morals are such a broad thing, though! I was thinking of Remembrance, just
as an example... where are the morals in that? On the face of it, I can't
really see any... but I guess you could draw a long bow and say that humans
working for the Daleks is saying, "Don't work for bad people and cause
others pain" ... but it's a very long bow to draw. It all depends on (i)
your interpretation of events & (ii) your own morals.
Funny, eh?
Rob


 I like to visit the past, but I wouldn't want to live there.
I might not mind living there as long as I wasn't restricted to there -
my name is not merely made-up.
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
--


 would like to bring up GENESIS OF THE DALEKS.
Ah, the old chestnut. I was waiting for this one to come up!
While the show is, to many people, a classic -- I cringe when I see the
uniforms, the way the soldiers snap their heels to attention... and the fact
that Leiutenent Gruber is in it (although without his "little tank")... it
just leaves me feeling, "Couldn't anyone think-up a plausible alien race
withour resorting to a tired Nazi cliche?"
"Do they think the viewer is so dumb that they have to portray the bad guys
as Nazis, just to show who the 'bad people' are in the story?"
RI


 your interpretation of events & (ii) your own morals.
How 'bout "Racism is bad."
runs right thru it, with Ace finding the "No Coloureds" sign in the
window and the Sgt's attempt at justifying his actions to the Group
Captain when he gets caught being two of the more obvious moments.
Not saying I disagree mind you, just that it gets a bit thick 
occasionally. A really good writer makes such points seem to flow *from*
the story, not feel grafted on.
And a hack just writes whatever pays.
David H Tiffany  


 that Leiutenent Gruber is in it (although without his "little tank")
Although about 5-10  years before Guy Siner got the role of Gruber.
Important to keeep these things in order.


 Important to keeep these things in order.
Oh, I know, I know... that was just me injecting some humour into the piece!
:)


 David H Tiffany
Thank you for clarifying. You stated  more precisely what  I was trying to
say.   :)


From this I hope you can see that I am not 'anti' continuity, but want to
give a new series a chance to develop, a new Doctor for the audience to grow
to love.
I'm very much in favour of the 'slow, careful, character-centric' return
instead of 'bang! this is the Doctor and these are the baddies' which is
what I was really arguing against.
Do you now understand what was driving my earlier posts?
Brax
---
'Normal? Normal! What an insult - I'm never normal!'
Eye of Orion issue five, details at 
www.dellah.freeserve.co.uk
'the calibre of the writing and originality of the contents is second to
none.'
- Darren Allen, DWAS Social Secretary


Hmmm...
I see I've some re-viewing to do. Until I dig it up (excuses to watch the
Doctor are welcome anyway) I apologise for misplacing the quote, tho I
stand by the near overkill on GOTD's Nazi inferences. Again, as I said,
still loved the episode.
On a more general note, I would like to thank Chuck, Rob, Davis, Tom and
the rest on the recent upsurge in engrossing discussion on the list of
late.  And to everyone a pleasant  Christmas, Boxing Day and/or other
traditions and incitements to celebrate things.
Arthur Dykeman (
arthu...@juno.com
)
"...the cosmos without the Doctor
 scarcely bears thinking about"
              The Master, "The Five Doctors"
--


 traditions and incitements to celebrate things.
Thanks Arthur! I, too, have been really happy with these discussions. I like
nothing better than to argue a case with other people who feel equally
passionate about their thoughts on something Who-related. Generally, none of
us wll change our way of thinking, but it's extremely stimulating,
nevertheless!!!
Merry Chrimbo to all,
Rob


Brax, I've read your post and I think I can say without fear of
contradicting myself (no, that's not meant to be funny - it's a long
story) that I can agree with you on every point. I like your outline for
a new "first" season, and I like your reasons (though I've never seen,
read, or even before this heard of "The Nth Doctor"). My previous
disagreement came from the fact that it was not clear that you were
advocating this for the *beginning* of new Who, rather than for the long
haul. I feel much more comfortable with the situations (etc.) you
describe than I did with the ones I perceived in your previous posts on
the subject. I think that, yes, we are actually arguing on the same side
but didn't know it - matter of miscommunication, most likely. (Which
leads into one of my pet peeves, to use the term, but that's getting
afield.)
If this were Callahan's I'd offer you a BOYC, but since this is the
Who-list...
--
      The Wanderer
I feel I should warn you I'm slightly mad.
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
