edward@ukecc.UUCP (Edward C. Bennett) (10/07/85)
I think we should give an award for "Biggest Improvement in One Week" to NBC's Amazing Stories. The series made a much-needed improvement over last weeks sappy Spielburgish episode. This weeks episode, the name of which I've already forgotten, concerned an ego-driven high school athlete/stud/BMOC who gets magnatized by a meteorite. Silly you say? Well, yeah, but the story was told well and it was FUNNY! The problem was, IT HAD NO ENDING!! The story was moving along nicely, it had just reached an important point in the plot's development....and it just ended. The problem of the magnatism was never resolved. There was a potentially humorous interaction implied between the stud and the 'wall flower' girl character that was left hanging. Sure, you can say, "the hero got the girl in the end", but that's a pretty cheap rationalization of the ending. If anything is to blame here, it is surely the half hour time factor. Maybe the writers are just trying to squeeze too much story into too little time. (I should probably mention that the segment was directed by Mathew Robbins (I think). Has anybody ever heard of him before?) NBC has reaffirmed my faith in them as a quality network. While this show had its problems, I liked it. It made me laugh out loud, something that I rarely do while watching TV. If NBC can maintain the quality of 'Amazing Stories' at or above this week's level, the show is destined to a ratings winner. BTW, Alfred Hitchcock just ended. That was GOOD! (He was my husband. BANG!) But that's another review.....I'll let Jeff Meyer do it. ...well...gotta go watch 'The Long Hot Summer'... -- Edward C. Bennett UUCP: ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward /* A charter member of the Scooter bunch */ "Goodnight M.A."
lo@harvard.ARPA (Bert S.F. Lo) (10/10/85)
> I think we should give an award for "Biggest Improvement in > One Week" to NBC's Amazing Stories. The series made a much-needed > improvement over last weeks sappy Spielburgish episode. Right. Quality of episode 1 = 10 ^ -1000 Quality of episode 2 = 10 ^ -999 (Wow! A 10-fold increase in quality) > This weeks episode, the name of which I've already forgotten, > concerned an ego-driven high school athlete/stud/BMOC who gets > magnatized by a meteorite. Silly you say? Well, yeah, but the story > was told well and it was FUNNY! If your idea of funny is someone trying to get metal objects off himself for 15 minutes. > The problem was, IT HAD NO ENDING!! It also had no beginning, middle, or entertainment value, so don't be picky. > The story was moving along nicely, it had just reached an important > point in the plot's development....and it just ended. The problem > of the magnatism was never resolved. There was a potentially > humorous interaction implied between the stud and the 'wall flower' > girl character that was left hanging. Sure, you can say, "the hero > got the girl in the end", but that's a pretty cheap rationalization > of the ending. The ending was very simple. For being such a glorious asshole, he has to suffer with being attached to that homely girl forever (or until the scientists can get him unmagnetized). > If anything is to blame here, it is surely the half hour > time factor. Maybe the writers are just trying to squeeze too much > story into too little time. The problem is the time factor all right, too much time for too little story. While reading and hearing people's opinions of "Amazing" and "Hitchcock" and "Zone", I've noticed that often when people don't like the particular episode, they'll say it was predictable, and I guess that would really kill a show of this genre (stories with surprise twists). The only problem is that most of us have seen so much TV & film and read enough so that any story of any type could be labelled predictable by someone. So what exactly determines if a story is predictable? I didn't like either of the 2 "Amazing Stories" nor the first episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and I have to say that I found them predictable. I did like the second episode of "Alfred Hitchcock" a lot and I didn't find it predictable. So am I just using "bad" and "predictable" interchangeably? (I think a lot of us are.) Not really. The reason why the first "Amazing Story" was predictable was that you knew Spielberg was in charge and all of his product has the same style, so by simply appyling that style to this plot, anyone could guess the outcome. Besides, the old man kept on saying over and over again what would happen. As for the second episode, the characters were drawn to such extremes that you knew that the asshole would get his comeuppance and because the fat girl was portrayed as the most disgusting thing in the world to be near, that he was going to be stuck with her. The second episode of "Alfred Hitchcock" was completely different in this respect. The cop killer was really smooth but not obnoxiously so and the nurse seemed naive and caring but not stupid. It wasn't obvious from this that she was going to blow him away herself. (Granted, you could have guessed this if you read/watch enough of these stories, but not just from what was presented.) So, what's the point of all this garbage? I'm just hoping that, when people review these shows again (and you know they will), they'll really try not to fling that word around so casually. You see, I'm planning to not watch "Amazing Stories" for a while. I'm going to let the reviews flow through this group and if the tide of opinions does turn, then I'll give the show another chance. _________________________Bert S.F. Lo (lo@harvard.ARPA)_________________________