Ask the chief


Terry Farrell's Non-Renewal



Download 126.12 Kb.
Page4/7
Date conversion14.04.2018
Size126.12 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7


Terry Farrell's Non-Renewal


Beginning with Jim Coyle's comments in the

3/6/98 column

(SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER)
Scott McClenney: Reading about the possibility of a new Dax got me to think that maybe just for the fun of it

the new Dax ought to act really erractic for the first several episodes(if Terry doesn't

come back as Dax that is). If it is a female they should make her into a real pants

chaser. Have her really be the opposite of Jadzia. Or they could make her into a bit of a

homocidal manaic for the first few episodes have her try to kill Worf when no-one is

around. Hey,it worked in The Twin Dilemma when Colin Baker took over from Peter Davison on

Dr.Who. The entire first part the Doctor tries to kill poor Peri,also poor Peri has to

survive the Doctor's mood swings.


Chris Marks:

Let me first say that I have no real problem with changing Dax's host,

my problem is that there will be no time for character development. Yes,

Doctor Who has done it seven times now, but each time the character has

changed, i) it's been the shows main character that's changed, and ii)

we've had at least three years of character development. The only time

they haven't was with Paul McGann in the tv movie of two years ago, and

what do we know about his character and personality? Not much.


Think of it this way, if Luke Skywalker had been first introduced into

Return of The Jedi thirty minutes before the credits rolled, would we

really accept him as the hero?

Going back to my first point above, Dax has always suffered from what I

call the 'three pip syndrome'. Basically, if you don't have three full

pips, or you're not a real oddball character that the creators want to

develop, you get about one episode a year. I mean, how much do we really

know about Uhura, or Checkov, Sulu, Deanna Troi, Bev Crusher, Harry

Kim.... Denise crosby left TNG because her character wasn't developing.

So, if there are any of the creators of DS9 reading this, then take Dax

and promote her. Give her a Defiant and send her off against the

Dominion. Let DS9 struggle on without her. Just don't give us half a

character that we'll never see grow beyond the audition scripts calls

because you're going to finish the series in a years time.




All-Time Favorite TV Show and Movie


Beginning with Mike Cheyne's comments in the

3/6/98 column

From: "Pope Family"

To:

Subject: Ask the Chief

Date sent: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:36:03 -0800


Jennifer Pope, Longview, WA - I've been following the 'favorite movies'

discussion, and I noticed that 'The Princess Bride' got more than a few

votes, including one from our illustrious Chief. Having already read the

book, I decided to see if the movie deserved the accolades it was

receiving. It did! I loved it. Thanks for the tip, fellow nitpickers.

BTW, if you've seen the movie and liked it but never read the book, READ

THE BOOK!!! The movie did a great job of sticking to the story, but a ton

of really good stuff got left out any way. Don't miss it.





Marriage, Family and Trek

Beginning with Joshua Truax's comments in the

3/13/98 column

From: Joe Griffin

Send reply to: bag_one@toxicbag.com

To: chief@nitcentral.com

Subject: Ask the Chief

Kate Mulgrew did in fact portray Major Rayner Fleming in the 1985 film

_Remo Williams:The Adventure Begins_. (The film starred Fred Ward as

Remo and Joel Grey as Chiun.) It's a fun martial-arts parody movie.
Re: Marriage, Family, Trek: One of the myriad reasons I had to despise

TNG was the families aboard the Ent-D. I'm sorry, but it's still a

military vessel. I wouldn't want to be in a dangerous situation in deep

space and have to be distracted from my job wondering if my kids were

okay down on deck 12. And the argument that the NextGen Enterprise was

"more of a research/exploration vessel" doesn't cut it. The original

ship's mission was one of exploration as well (says so in the opening

credits--"Explore...seek out...go."). Kids, it's dangerous out there

where no man has gone before. No matter how nifty-looking your ship is,

you're still venturing into the unknown. Along with completely useless

characters like Troi (how characteristic of the '80s to have a shrink on

the bridge!), this families issue was one of the things that

contributed to the whole "kinder, gentler" atmosphere that made early

TNG a seriously watered-down rehash of TOS.


Original nit: "To boldly go" is a split infinitive.

>>>Why do you think actors consider it so vitally important that they trick us into

>>>believing their fantasy is real?

>>>>

First off, it's not neccesarily _their_ fantasy; it is more likely the

playwrite's fantasy. (If the question is why a person chooses to be an

actor, there are as many answers as there are actors. But I don't think

that was really the question.) But as a nitpicker, I'm suprised you

would ask that question. Look at what we do here at NitCentral: we pull

apart every little thing that exposes the artifice of television/film

for what it is, whether the perceived problem is in the plot, the sets,

the effects, the acting, the dialogue...(most folks seem to be of the

opinion that the acting on Voyager and DS9 is substandard, and Bab5 has

the worst-looking outer space sequences on TV.) As audience members, we

are demanding a convincing approximation of reality. If the fantasy

world of the play or the movie is not convincing, we're not going to

watch.


Some actors I know believe that the audience is there because of the

actors. I think it's the other way around; without an audience, an

actor is out of a job. The audience is the reason the entertainment

industry exists. So I guess the question is, why do _we_ need it to

seem so real?
Joe



1   2   3   4   5   6   7


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page