From: GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU (ggreg)
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:59:40 GMT

it's not just the techno dweeb aspect, but the lack of a sense of wonder,
of the unknown.  at least the old show use to boldly go where no man has
gone before.  now they rarely go anywhere new, just their nice, pristine
known, safe universe.  waht about that dyson sphere?  why blow a cool idea like
that on a scotty episode, instead of exploring that concept alone for an
entire episode?  and DS9 is going nowhere even faster.  one week it's cardass-
ians vs. the notch-nosed aliens, then it's the notched nosed aliens vs.
mr. morph ("sit odo, sit.")what's next?  cardassians vs. ferengi?
i can excuse some of the science blunders, but i like/watch SF for
a sense of wonder, of mystery, of the unknown, not just soap-opera
elements/cop shows/action/thirty something propelled into the future.
that's why i think STNG/DS9 suck.  yea, i know every once i a while
(the dyson sphere) they come up with an interesting concept, but nine
out of ten times they fuck it up with a dual story line, instead of
focusing on the SF elements of the idea.
 
                               ggreg
 
In article <17915@umd5.umd.edu>
jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...) writes:
 
>
>Well, this is impressive.  It's taken people less than a week to start
>slamming DS9 as much as they do TNG, and for the same reasons.  It's not
>techno-dweeby enough.
>
>(Speaking as a part-time techno-dweeb myself, I can use that term without
>making it too much of a slam.  If you're insulted, just read "hardware-
>oriented" or "hard SF" for "techno-dweeby".)
>
>Allow me to point something out.  STAR TREK IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A
>TECHNO-DWEEB SHOW.  In terms of science being important to the stories,
>it's one step above "Quantum Leap".  Go all the way back to "The Cage".
>Where's the hard SF in that one?  Where's the coherent SF ideas, even?
>All there is, is a race of telepathic aliens which give the captain a
>chance to face an _idea_ - pleasant illusion versus horrible reality.
>
>The science fiction is a backdrop.  It has always been.  The entire
>point of the episodes is the sociological / philosophical discussion,
>which certain people on this newsgroup have been dismissing out of hand.
>If you don't like that, if you want your ideas to be harder-edged
>scientific concepts... well, then maybe "Star Trek" isn't the show for
>you.
>
>I'll admit, the backdrop has been pretty badly abused on occasion.  Some of
>the technobabble in recent TNG episodes has made me cringe too.  But I'm
>willing to forgive the occasional two-word gaffe, if the remainder of the
>hour is a solid story.  (If it isn't, I've been known to bash too.)
>
>"Deep Space Nine" has taken some great strides over TNG in telling solid
>stories.  They're not trying to cram an entire story into 50 minutes --
>this second show started what look to be a serialized plotline or two.
>And this episode was even an actual DRAMA, the story of a person's
>life-changing and life-defining choice.
>
>If the cost of improved writing is a lack of techno-dweebish science, well,
>I for one can accept that the writers for DS9 will invent a backdrop
>to tell their human stories.  It's what they've been doing all along.