From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:09:57 GMT

In article <6860@npri6.npri.com> murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:
>
>>	Paralleling Gallileo (who actually studied his subject) to 
>>	the hack writers who write for ST (who, likely, have never 
>>	studied any more science than you get in your typical comic book) 
>>	is pretty pathetic.  These people aren't visionaries, they're
>>	deluded egomaniacs who can't be bothered with checking their work.
>>
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
>
>may i point out that you are being unnecessarily insulting?  "these people"
>are TELEVISION WRITERS, and as such, their main goal is to *entertain*,
>not adhere to scientific accuracy.  


	Obviously.  Is there some axiom that says that intelligence/education
	is inversely proportional to entertainment?

	Would it *really* hurt TNG if these people tried to make their
	plots a little more realistic (No, it would help) or at least
	stopped makingup new elements, etc?


>obviously they are succeeding,
>since TNG and DS9 are getting high ratings.  


	DS9 got decent ratings because it was a premier.  If you want to
	talk about ratings in terms of reviews, though, DS9 was almost
	universally tossed aside as lousy.


>calling them "deluded
>egomaniacs" is 


	about as accurate as I can get without borrowing from myself
	("pinheaded mouthbreathers") or someone else ("sociology types").


>waaaayy out of line, and makes _you_ look rather petulant;
>they have to worry about *drama* and *plot* and *characterization* and
>*sets* and *lighting* and *which actors are available* and *fitting the
>whole she-bang into sixty minutes, carefully timed for commercials* and
>*getting the whole thing done by thursday*


	Pardon?  the show plot and storyline come from the writers.

	That is:
	story outline
	meat --- drama, plot, characterizations

	The other things (set, lighting, special effects, who is available,
	editing, commercials) are the responsibility of someone else.

	I've seen better plots than most of the TNG storylines posted to the
	net by sf fans than that junl the ST:TNG/DS9 writers spew out each
	week.  



> . . .  i very much doubt that
>these points you describe are of any great concern to either the producer,
>the director, or the writer in comparison to the points i just listed.


	In other words, realism isn't important.

	Please, get real.  If the present writers are too incompetent to
	produce sound plots, they should hire some who can.  There's no
	shortage (and hell, they couldn't do much worse).


>so lay off, yamanari.


	Point, counterpoint.


>sure, i wish they were better science-fiction writers, but apparently
>there's not much of a market for that on television :-)


	There could be.  These people are given chance after chance
	to produce a quality product.  TNG had a guaranteed audience,
	and DS9 had one too.  They COULD have produced GOOD sf, but they
	chose not to.  Now, either they're too stupid (deliberately so)
	to determine which writers to hire, or they're hiring friends
	(andnot worrying about quality).  I could believe either
	possibility. 

	Was there any good reason for DS9 to be as utterly rediculous as it 
	was?  No.  Why was it that way?  Because they just don't care about
	the quality of their product.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.