From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed startrek split & the crossover issue
Keywords: crossovers, rebuttal
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:49:57 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1jnqjfINNimq@lynx.unm.edu> kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.111734.19612@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>>Much of the opposition to doing a ds9/tng style split has centered
>>upon the objection that there will be a lot of crossover episodes
>>which will generate too much crossposting.  I have in turn contended that
>>there will not be so many crossover episodes, for the following reasons:
>>
>>1) In many markets, tng and ds9 air on different channels.  Despite what
>>some people claim, this does have an impact on the number of crossovers.
>>Someone sent me e-mail (which I tried to post but couldn't) pointing
>>out that, say, NBC affiliates won't like it if the second part of
>>TNG episodes appear on a rival FOX affiliate!
>
>Irrelevant.  Paramount is prducing both shows for direct syndication
>and doesn't give a fig about whether or not NBC and FOX are annoyed
>that their affiliates are showing them opposite each other.
>
>>	
>>2) I would go even farther and say that it is not necessarily in
>>Paramount's interest to do crossovers very often, as they will soon
>>discover, because in some parts of the country,
>>any given week's tng air before ds9, whereas in others, ds9 will air
>>before tng.  Here in Boston we get ds9 on Sunday and tng six days later.
>>Perhaps in other cities tng is on Saturday and ds9 the following Sunday.
>>It is obvious that this will create huge logistics problems and confuse
>>mass audiences -- which, after all, Paramount must please to a far
>>greater degree than us trekkies.
>
>Irrelevant.  See above.  Paramount doesn't give a rat's posterior
>about when each station chooses to show the shows.

Wow, this Odo stuff has gone to everyone's head, er, nose :)
Come one, if it affects the number of viewers overall Paramount will care.

>>3) Somone claimed that if they want to do a crossover, all they have to
>>do is "borrow Patrick Stewart and ask him to come across the set," or
>>something to that extent.  Sorry, but it's not that simple.  Patrick Stewart
>>must be *paid* to appear as a guest star on ds9, as his contract only
>>talks about tng; similarly, extras and so forth would have to be hired, and
>>there are union rules to obey.
>
>Being the individual who proposed the scenario so simplistically
>dismissed here, allow me to expand it.
>
>[Patrick's agent]: I've got a contract for you to shoot some scenes
>for DS9.  I understand you're not all that busy in the TNG set that
>week.  It's at scale plus some incentives.  Interested?

First, I've never heard of any actor in a weekly hour-long show,much
less the *star*, not being "all that busy."  But, let's ignore that and
assume you are right.  Patrick may still demand yet more money
that Paramount won't want to give him, and then they must go thru the headache
of negotiating... we go through this process every two years with the films.
It works for the films *because* it's only every two years.  It wouldn't
work more often than that, like on a weekly series.  Don't forget,
Patrick is apparently demanding a lot of money to renew his *TNG*
contract for a 7th season, and they haven't even agreed to that yet,
much less multiple appearances on a spinoff show.

>>4) Back when tng was introduced, everybody made a point of avoiding
>>comparisions with tos, saying that the new series had to stand or fall
>>on its own.  The same is true with ds9.  It must be given a chance to
>>stand or fall on its own.
>
>Er...Since TOS had been off the air for some 18 years, this isn't
>all that relevant either.  Because the series are being produced
>concurrently and are apparantly intenionally engaging in
>cross-polination, comparisons are inevitable.

But look, to some extent it will damage the credibility of both
shows if they do too many crossovers.  People will say, "Can't
Hawk --er Sisko -- act without Patrick Stewart in the scene?"  And
we Trekkies will say, "Just why does the Big-E come tow DS9 every
four weeks?!?"  Don't forget, with one *single* tos/tng crossover 
-- "Relics" -- people said, "Just what kind of coincidence is it
that the Enterprise-D finds Scotty, and not some other ship?"  Or
in YE, "why does the Enterprise -C meet the Enterprise -D, and not
some other ship?"

BTW, just 'cuz I think they won't do many crossovers (despite their
stated intentions) doesn't mean that DS9 isn't a good show in its
own right.

>
>>5) Lastly, some people have said, "well, Lursa and Bator appeared on
>>Past Prologue, so where would we discuss that under a ds9/tng split."
>>But come on, be reasonable. 
>
>Reasonable?  Keep in mind that this is rec.arts.startrek.* we're
>discussing here. ;-)

Point well taken :)

>
>                                Lursa and Bator obviously appeared within
>>the context of ds9.  I don't think you can reasonably contend that it
>>was a true crossover.  If tng ever follows up on their appearance, 
>>a) it will probably be in a few months, and discussions of *old*
>>episodes belong in .misc, or b) it will be within a context of tng,
>>so the new discussion would go in .current.tng.  Obviously, there
>>would be some reference back to PP.  I'm not trying to claim antecedents
>>aren't important.  But there would be more than enough new action to 
>>stimulate a lot of new discussion on tng.
>
>I do not share your confidence in the 'common sense' of usenet
>readership.  (I've been hanging out in news.groups too long. ;-)  I
>can easily see somebody saying "Ah.  .ds9.  Well, this has something
>to do with ds9..."

Sure.  I don't claim there won't be mispostings and so on.  No reasonable
person could.  I don't claim there won't be ambiguity sometimes, even
for regular posters.   But I do think that there would be considerably
*less* traffic and *less* ambiguity than there is now.  Also, experienced
posters, who would have a better idea of what's appropriate to post
where, usually sort of lead discussions by putting in the first word.
Other people then follow-up.  By setting the followup line in article
headings, there would be a fairly solid organization.

>
>>In a few weeks -- probably before we decide how and whether to split
>>r.a.s.c -- we'll see how well the planned crossover works for Paramount
>>(you know, the one with Worf.)  I may change my mind then, but for now
>>I predict that crossovers will be rare.  Of course, we may have different
>>definitions of crossovers -- I do not say that Lwaxana Troi coming
>>on ds9 is a true crossover, since all the plot would take place within
>>the context of ds9.  I say that true crossovers will have plot so that
>>*actions taken on one locale -- the big E or ds9 -- will affect
>>the course of both series' major characters*, such as the Worf
>>episode coming up.  Let's see how the crossovers bear out
>
>I have a better idea.  Let's see how the traffic bears out before we
>start trying to solve a problem that may not manifest.

Yes, that would also be a benefit of holding off for a few weeks.
Newsgroups: news.groups