home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.tv:6186 rec.arts.tv:24402
- Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.tv
- Path: sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!pyuxe!krk1
- From: krk1@pyuxe.uucp (24228-knights)
- Subject: Re: QL in Entertainment Weekly
- Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:02:38 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.160238.9294@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
- References: <1h74t5INN556@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Bzo03r.8Fo@encore.com>
- Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
- Lines: 65
-
- > (Elizabeth A. Hlabse) writes:
- > >
- > >
- > > Entertainment Weekly just came out with its best and worst of 1992 and QL
- > > made the list. This is not something to be proud of. It made the top 5
- > > WORST list. I quote.
- > >
- > > The others in this worst list for TV were:
- > > 1. Angel Street
- > > 2. The Heights
- > > 3. Picket Fences
- > > 4. Quantum Leap
- > > 5. L.A. Law
- > >
- > > I would like to thank Don Bellisario for doing this. If QL isn't on next
- > > year, I think (and this is _all_ IMO) that we can blame him for trying to
- > > make QL into something that it just isn't. Yes, QL can give a message and
- > > has done a wonderful job of doing so. Walk a mile in my shoes --- and all
- > > that kind of thing. However, we don't want history according to Don B.
- >
- Jan adds:
-
- > Don't take Best/Worst lists so seriously, especially from a
- > superficial magazine like Entertainment Weekly. (I had a
- > subscription when it first starting publishing, and they
- > wouldn't know an insightful, in-depth article if it came up
- > and bit them on the butt.)
- >
- > A "Worst list" containing Picket Fences and QL isn't worth bupkes.
- >
- I have to agree with Jan here. Entertainment Weekly is one of the
- lousiest magazines it has been my lack of pleasure to read. I subscribed
- assuming it would be a good source of entertainment news, and discovered
- that it was just a mish-mosh of a bunch of people's opinions about stuff,
- often not well supported. Over the last few weeks they have said
- downright nasty things about John Denver, Wilson Phillips, and, of course,
- QL - twice. Week before last they were going off on some continuity
- thing with a disappearing mustard bottle in "Moments to Live." All I
- can say is, I've seen that ep about six times and I never saw that gaffe,
- so it must not be so bad (like, say, the travelling Band-Aid in "Her Charm").
- Anyway, in this article they said something like, The only reason
- QL is popular is because people's expectations of quality have become
- so low. They went on to make similar statements about Reasonable Doubts
- and a couple of other shows I don't remember.
-
- In any case, I think it is unfair for a magazine to judge an entire
- show based on one episode, which is what EW seems to have done here.
- I also think, Beth, that it is unfair to castigate Don, who
- has done five years of damn good work (on this show alone, not to mention
- all the other great stuff he's graced us with), because of one ep you didn't
- like. I know the feelings on LHO are mixed, but I don't see where
- it was an affront to QL scripture, as it were. It was an experiment.
- It was beautifully acted. It got the rest of this newsgroup annoyed
- because it generated so much traffic. I think it did what it was meant to do.
- :-)
-
- Oh, another note about EW. A couple of weeks ago, Stephen King wrote
- in lambasting them for a movie review they did. It was great.
- I wanted to run up to Bangor and give the guy a pat on the back.
-
- And one final note -- I am canceling my subscription. :-)
- -----
- Katriena Knights
- "I don't mind being in touch with reality, as long as I don't
- have to live there."
-