jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani) (06/29/85)
In article <294@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Now this is an interesting problem. Several shows have come out with >reasonable acting, drama, comedy, effects, production and REALLY STUPID >SCRIPTS. What I would like to know is how to communicate to producers >like Glen Larson et al how to fix their series so they become classics >instead of turkeys. >Starlost: > The premise was fine, the execution was terrible on this one. >There have been lots of good "lost ark in space" novels, so they >have no excuses. But here you hit the nail *right* on the head, Brad! *They* do not need excuses; *they* have probably NEVER read any of the "lost ark in space" novels! *They* are NOT SF writers or SF lovers -- they just do not care! Interesting that your comment is connected with the StarLost, a show created by Harlan Ellison, who does care. Its the guys like Larson who screw up concepts. If you're interested, get a copy of "Phoenix Without Ashes" by Ed Bryant, based on Ellison's pilot script. It includes an article by Ellison describing the screw-up of that pilot. I'll get out of your way now; thanx for "listening". -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!dcl-cs!jam DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.
ftsjmd@ncsu.UUCP (Mike Davis) (07/07/85)
<> There is one segment of a Dr Who episode that has been bothering me for some time. Usually Dr Who has imaginitive (sp?) scripts and well thought stories. The sf isn't hard core but when they show something it usually is correct, or good enough that I would allow them "poetic license". Example: the episode Enlightment, dumb premise, a yacht race in space, but the explaination of the wind being the solar wind and the gravity of the planets providing the force to steer against the wind was quite good. What gets me is Four to Doomsday, where the Doctor is stranded in space midway between another space craft and his Tardis. He pulls a cricket ball out of his pocket and throws it at the space ship, when he catches it on the rebound he has the momentum to reach his Tardis. He should have also gotten some momentum from throwing the ball!!! If the writers had figured out the solar sailing business I would have thought they would have figured this out too. Mike Davis
strausx@utai.UUCP (Paul Albert Strauss) (07/08/85)
> <> > There is one segment of a Dr Who episode that has been bothering me for > some time. Usually Dr Who has imaginitive (sp?) scripts and well thought > stories. The sf isn't hard core but when they show something it usually > is correct, or good enough that I would allow them "poetic license". > Example: the episode Enlightment, dumb premise, a yacht race in space, > but the explaination of the wind being the solar wind and the gravity > of the planets providing the force to steer against the wind was quite > good. What gets me is Four to Doomsday, where the Doctor is stranded > in space midway between another space craft and his Tardis. He pulls > a cricket ball out of his pocket and throws it at the space ship, when > he catches it on the rebound he has the momentum to reach his Tardis. > He should have also gotten some momentum from throwing the ball!!! > If the writers had figured out the solar sailing business I would have > thought they would have figured this out too. > > Mike > Davis Sounds to me as if throwing the ball toward the space craft (and thus away from his Tardis) would have accelerated the Doctor TOWARD his Tardis, as would the act of catching the ball. Thus, (without having seen this episode), I don't perceive a flaw. Paul Strauss