Re: Drums, Casting, Jody, ST:NG, McVicar

[Lev Polinsky <polinsky@husc.harvard.edu>]

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 WFang01@aol.com wrote:

> NE10, re:
> 
> >ST:NG for Expletives:  You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Fang, but
> I
> >think Patrick Stewart is twenty times the actor and ten times the captain
> >that Shatner/Kirk ever was.  From the third season on (yes, the first two
> >seasons were consistently lame) ST:NG was one of the highest quality shows
> on
> >the air.  While occasionally prone to oversoapyness or social
> prostheletising
> >(sp?), it consistently demonstrated intelligence, depth, and substance.  I
> >vote for using the real damn/fucking words.  That's my two cents.
> 
> I'm not Siskel or Ebert, but... you're kidding, aren't you? Partick Sewage is
> "barely" an actor (and for me, that's polite--Elmer Fudd could do better). I
> think you're fooled by his British accent and think "that's acting". It's
> not. Steward was a 2 bit actor with about 12 minutes of film time before TNG
> came along, do you think that wasn't for a reason? The truth of the matter
> is, nobody on the show did anything worthwhile. A lot of meaningless dialog
> (as Bernd pointed out "soap opera") but that's it. Do you think a "space"
> show, should be about "meetings" or indepth looks at boring character's lives
> (ad nauseum)??? As for the "quality", that was limited to the "special
> effects". Most of the stories were poorly written trash and edited and
> directed so badly that in many cases, the show just ended ("Gee, we ran out
> of time???") As for "intellegence and substance", let's pick an episode...
> "Darmok"??? Most TNG fans thought it "...was so wonderful, creative,
> intelligent, etc..." hMMM... gee what a great show... the viewer knows
> exactly what's going on, but the silly bald captain, doesn't have a clue.
> And, how 'bout that Paul Winfield, dressed up as a giant pigman? Or, did you
> notice capt Picklehead had time to change his uniform several times? (Nice
> introduction of the "blue shirt", hMMM???) I won't even bother to go into an
> explantion as to why the "metaphore" language makes no sense.
> 
> As for action, the most action I ever saw on that show, was capt Piqueer
> tugging at his uniform or pointing at Wesley's behind saying "engage" (btw,
> why was Wesley's zipper in the back???)
> 
> Humor? hMMM... how 'bout that blue guy that comes from an "all bald planet"
> yet he's a barber? Now that's pretty funny! It was even funnier when Pickhard
> got his hair (as in one hair) cut...
> 
> No, this "show" was not intelligent, well written, well acted or anything
> remotely close. It was however a good money maker for the former Gene
> Rodentbury, who wouldn't have known what to do with the original show if he
> wasn't bailed out shortly after the series began...
> 
> So... there you have it...
> 
> -wf
> 
Note 1:  The reason PS had 12 minutes of film time was that he was a 
theatre actor.  You know, the kind who can't mess up 20 times...

Note 2:  The first series was just as prone to cheap moralizing as the 
second, as the fourth, etc.  And the plots were as predictable in the 
first series as in the second, though both are above average.  At 
least NG was fairly well-polished (and, yes, so was Picard's head); the 
original is not that different from the type of stuff you see being made 
fun of on MST3K.

Who connection:
hmm, is Data 905?

(I'm sitting here imagining Roger singing, "Who the Riker are you?")

--LP.