Terry Farrell's Non-Renewal
Beginning with Jim Coyle's comments in the
(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.
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.
Return of The Jedi thirty minutes before the credits rolled, would we
really accept him as the hero?
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.
From: "Pope Family"
Subject: Ask the Chief
Date sent: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:36:03 -0800
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.
From: Joe Griffin
Send reply to: email@example.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.
>>>Why do you think actors consider it so vitally important that they trick us into
>>>believing their fantasy is real?
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
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?