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 15:19:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan22.102000.19656
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Let me first reiterate one of my main points as to why there won't be 
many crossovers: it would damamge the credibility of both series.  It's
a big galaxy, and just why would the Big-E wind up at an isolated
space station every three weeks?  Maybe the crew misses O'Brien?

On with the rebuttal to the rebuttal :)

In article <C1864A.5MC@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@Dartmouth.Edu writes:
>cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>
>>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!
>
>    What the hell are you talking about? TNG and DS9 are SYNDICATED
>shows owned by Paramount. They are not owned by any network. The fact
>that an NBC affiliate and a Fox affiliate in the same area both bought
>the shows from Paramount is irrelevant. They have no pull in what
>Paramount will or will not uplink to the satellite for all of the other
>stations that have purchaced shows from them. Basically Paramount
>couldn't care less what some station thinks about another station
>showing a episode that they didn't show.
>

Well, not quite.  If I am correct, Paramount -- which, in the final
analysis, want to make $$$ off Star Trek -- still needs advertisers
to buy air time in order for the show to be profitable.  Network
affiliates are not above playing tit-for-tit when it comes to 
upstaging rivals; and more importantly, they can influence the kind
and cost of commercials that are shown during syndicated programming.
Would anyone in the FCC care to elaborate or correct me if I am wrong?

>>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.
>
>    This is true, somewhat. Paramount uplinks the shows in a particular
>order which should be the order that they are broadcast in by the
>stations that have purchased both shows. And even if they didn't it
>would be quite easy for them to have a part 1 episode on DS9 one week
>and then have psrt 2 on TNG the next week.

Except... suppose the TNG crew goes to ds9.  Then on ds9, the next week,
the crossover concludes.  In the intervening time, just what are the
Big-E's crewmembers supposed to do?  Go visit some other planet
and then warp on back to ds9 for the conclusion of whatever they got
themselves into?  Of course, no one ever gave Paramount points for
credibility :)

>There would certainly be no
>conflicts with this method of handling 2 part episodes that span the
>series.

On a more serious note, there is one major problem: audiences
have a limited attention span.  Don't forget that Paramount must
interest casual viewers far more than us Trekkies.  Casual viewers
will get confused by protrated storylines.

>Actually it could be well within Paramount's best interest to
>have crossovers because that will cause audiences to pressure those
>stations that have only purchased one of the shows to get the other.
>This, of course, means more money.

Actually, I understand that some shows which get TNG would have liked
to get DS9, but were outbid by a rival affiliate.  When I was at home
in Albuquerque over break, I called the local NBC affiliate, which airs
TNG, and asked when DS9 would be.  They told me it was on Fox!  I was 
disappointed since Fox's reception quality is poor and asked why --
she said that Fox outbid them and they would really have liked to have
the show.

>>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.

>    Well, obviously they would have to pay him to appear on DS9, but
>that doesn't mean that they aren't planning to have numerous crossovers
>with people who have TNG contracts (Guinan, Q, Lwaxana, as well as the
>regular cast members). And vice-versa.

Well, aside from the logistical problems above, there is the issue of
paying them...and they would probably demand a lot, given that it would
probably not be so easy to deliberately write them out of a crossover :)

>>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.

>    You can't just say that the 2 situation are the same. Back when tng
>started tos had been off the air for about 10-15 years (my math skills
>are out to lunch just now).  And even though "everybody made a point of
>avoiding comparisons" this did not help cut down on the number of Kirk
>vs. Picard, Spock vs. Data, etc. posts from filling rec.arts.startrek.
>And if you don't think the same kind of thing will happen, especially
>when we know that there will be frequent crossovers, then you know very
>little about rec.arts.startrek.

Of course, but remember that *general* comparisons rightfully belong
in .misc anyway, not in current unless they are discussing an insight
generated by a new show.  And when that scenario occurs, why not just
discuss the insight under the group that pertains that show? 

>>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.  Lursa and Bator obviously appeared within
>>the context of ds9.  I don't think you can reasonably contend that it
>>was a true crossover.

>    This is true, and you're right I don't consider it to be a true
>crossover. But this is because Lursa and B'etor aren't TNG regulars. But
>when Worf appears on DS9 in a couple of episodes it will be a crossover,
>and then the question asked above does apply. Where do those posts go?

Like I said, let's wait and see about crossovers.  IMHO, an excessive
number of crossovers will damage the credibility of both series (why 
would the Big-E always hang out at DS9, anyway?).  My prediction
is that there won't be more than one per season, if that.  But I may
be wrong.  We'll know more by the time any CFV comes out.

>>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, 

>    Wrong. Since the episode that contains the followup would be
>current, then discussion about that episode should be posted to
>.current, but I suppose that if people were really being particular a
>few cross posts to .misc wouldn't be out of order.

>>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.
>
>    For now, lets use the groups we have before people start trying to
>justify some new newsgroups that do not exist.

Agreed.  My position is just "if you think it happened on tng, then
it's tng; if you think it happened on ds9, it's ds9."

>>In a few weeks -- probably before we decide how and whether to split
>>r.a.s.c 
>
>    At this point there is no official proposal to split
>rec.arts.startrek.current.

Wasn't there a RFD on creating r.a.s.c.ds9 and r.a.s.c. tng?  Or was I
seeing things?

>The proposal under discussion is to create
>rec.arts.startrek.reviews as a place for non-discussion reviews of Star
>Trek related items. This in no way splits the traffic of r.a.s.c.

That proposal exists too.

>>We'll see how the planned crossover with Worf works out.  I may
>>change my mind later, but for now I predict that crossovers will
>>be few and far between. 

>    You are free to predict anything you like. But the fact remains that
>Berman and Pillar have said that the two series are linked and that
>there will be frequent crossovers with the cast members. This is one of
>the main reasons they set DS9 in the same time as TNG.

Logistics have a way of not bearing out people's promises.  Khrushchev
also said the USSR would bury the West and move from its socialist phase
to the true communist stage of development by the 1980's.  Look what
happened in reality.

>>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.
>
>    Lwaxana Troi is a recurring character on ST:TNG, her appearance in
>DS9, while not central to the plot of whatever episode she will be
>appearing in does in fact constitute a crossover of characters between
>the two series. Even if she is there wholly within the context of a DS9
>episode, chances are she will be talking about it on a furture TNG
>episode which also makes it a crossover.

OK, but her appearance on ds9 would likely not *affect* the TNG characters
in any way.  She would interact only with the ds9 characters, and her
presence on ds9 would in no way change daily operations on the Big-E.
Hence, as far as I'm concerned, her appearance on ds9 is part of ds9
alone.  Now, if she were to bring Deanna along with her, things
would be different, but see my points above about that.

>>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
>
>    The upcoming Worf episode is more than just a crossover, it is a
>cross-series 2-part episode that starts in DS9 and ends in TNG. Even if
>Paramount only does one of these a season the amount of cross poting
>would be phenominal between tng and ds9 newsgroups.

For two weeks, yes.  But that's better than a phenomenal amount
of postings in a unified r.a.s.c. the whole year round.

>Not to mention the
>number of articles that would be incorrectly posted between them.
>People would end up having to read both groups just so they can be
>assured of seeing all the traffic pertinent to one of the shows. If that
>is what you call making life easier, I'll stick with the complicated
>UseNet existence I have now.

Those experienced posters who write reviews could, of course, set
follow-up lines....

Chris