Star Trek:
The Next Generation
Look, I'm not a Trekkie. Oh sure, I can give you plot summaries for every
episode of the original show, and I still watch the reruns nearly every night at twelve,
usually missing the first half of Letterman, but I'm not a Trekkie. I swear, I'm just a
science-fiction buff.
0.K., Shatner is an overweight ham. Anybody who would do TJ. Hooker is
an overweight something, but, I must admit, his Kirk is still like most of the real captains
I saw in the Navy, egomaniacs all. DeForrest Kelly's Dr. McCoy has a bedside manner
which is barely compensated for by high-tech medicine. Urura, Sulu, and Chekov will
always be a UNESCO film we saw in grade school, only now it's brotherhood in the
sky. Scottie is a parody, and, as Spock, Lepnard Nimoy is probably the best actor, if
only because he doesn't do anything. In the original series, the sets are cheesy and the
women encountered in deep space all look like they just stepped off Hollywood
Boulevard, circa 1968. Still, it has charm—Who doesn't want to believe that life will
be better in the future?
The Jaded Eye: Movie & Television Reviews
By C.W. Heiser
The movies are better. Well, not the first one. I can't even remember the plot
to the first one. The Wrath of Khan is decent, even if Ricardo Montalban does have
plastic pecs, and Star Trek IV is good, although the basic plot is a tried and true
standby from the old days: The Enterprise goes back in time to save the Earth, and how
will people react to Spock?
So, how does the new show stack-up? Star Trek: The Next Generation
is, like the original, produced by Gene Roddenberry. And like the original, the new S tar
Trek Jl,.as Rpddenbegy's utopian. touch.; The story-line takek-plicesetienty years after
the original. Humanity has evolved further beyond a reliance on violence, while the
responses of other species are culturally relative, if we will only be patient enough to
see it. Government too, in the guise of the Federation, has evolved; it's like a "New
Last Month's Survey Results
by Michele Hart
Five of the seven people who
filled out last month's survey on the
possibility of forming a returning
women's support group said they would
be very interested in having just such a
group on campus.
These five respondents said they
thought this type of group is necessary
because of the number of returning
women on campus, the special problems
a mature student faces when coming
back to school, and the returning
student's need for support and help.
Most of the replies also said that the
group should be made of students and
staff and faculty.
The best time for the group to
meet, according to our respondents is at
noon any day during the week. To
publicize the meeting, the people who
filled out the survey suggested using The
Capital Times, WNDR, This Week on
Campus, notices on bulletin boards, and
mailing notices.
:• Once the group is formed our
Open Forum for all Women
Students at Penn State Hbg.
January 27, 1988
Gallery Lounge
12-1:30 pm
Do you have a problem or concern? Do you want a support group?
Do you have ideas for improving the status of women on campus?
Plan to attend this meeting for all women students.
respondents would like to see a wide
variety of topics discussed. The most
popular issue these people want to deal
with is child care. One person suggested
setting up a child care facility and then
using it as part of the curriculum for
elementary education majors. The ERA,
employment opportunities for women,
equal pay, lesbianism, and politics were
also mentioned in the replies as topics
for discussion and development.
Those topics, however, came
from the five reponses that were positive
towards the ideal of developing a
returning women's support group. We
also received two very negative
responses--one from a female and one
from a male--about this group. Both of
these people were against the group for
the same reason. They said that such a
group emphasizes the differences in
people more than they should be
emphasized.
"Why does every group focus
on its differences? How about a
returning people group?" one respondent
asked.
Deal" or "Great Society" that works, and everyone is taken care of. All people live and
work in equality. (I should mention that, though part of the prologue has been changed
from "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to "...where no person has gone
before," there is still a noticeable lack of women in senior positions of command. Even
Gene has his limits.) The special effects are much better, but that's understandable—
Nobody even heard of Spielberg or Lucas in '6B:Some reri Trekkies, a minority
I hope, don't like the new show because the special effects are so well done. I guess
it's the feeling of pretend in the old show that they miss. I guess. This is the strangest
criticsm I've ever heard leveled against aTV show, that it's too good.)
I think Gene has been watching Hill Street Blues or L.A. Law, because, while
similar to the old series, the plots are more complex and the cast is larger. It's in this
new cast that Star Trek: The Next Generation really shines. Ounce for ounce,
this cast beats everyone in Star Wars, and every other Star something imitation of
Star Trek. By any standards, this is good acting. Many of the character traits from
the original series have been carried into the new cast, in different forms. Spock's logic
and stoicism is split between the android, Lt. Commander Data, played in white face
by Brent Spiner, and Michael Dorn's Klingon officer, Lt. Worf. (Yeah, the Klingons
have finally joined the Federation.) The Vulcan mind-meld is now taken care of by
Counselor Deanna Troi, who, as played by Marina Sirtis, can read emotions. Kirk's
rakish ways and Top Gun attitude are picked up by First Officer Commander William
Riker, portrayed by Jonathan Frakes. The real gem of the cast is Patrick Stewart. While
Kirk blusters impetuously, Stewart's Captain Jean-Luc Picard cautiously broods.
Probably the greatest improvement over the old show, though, is in the
handling of minor characters. If you were a minor character and you beamed down with
the landing party in the original Star Trek, it was a law of the universe that you would
die within five minutes, unless Kirk was in love with you, then you would probably die
in the last ten minutes of the show. In Star Trek: The Next Generation you will
proably live to further the plot in other ways. There is less reliance on death as a plot
device. It's not absent, but the violence is not stressed as much. This could be taken
as proof of the Star Trek genre's basic premise: If we can do it on television, maybe
humanity on evolve as a species.
If you've been following the Eye, you know I rarely recommend anything with
few qualificiations. Ido recommend Star Trek: The Next Generation. Watch
it. If you've got kids, watch it with them...l'm not a Trekkie. Honest.
Capital Times, Dec. 9, 1987 -- Page