From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:04:35 GMT


	These pain killers have me in a foul mood.  Or maybe it's the pain.
	Anyway.  Let's hear it for percadan induced insomnia.

	It's kind of depressing to be bashing one of my favorite shows,
	but DS9 was just plain rotten and I'm feeling bitter.  The only
	thing worse than being disappointed by a lousy but much-hyped
	program is listening to people say how deep it was, and excuse
	these clods for their ineptitude.


In article <6863@npri6.npri.com> murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:
>well, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) and i seem to have somthing going here...
> >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?

>no, no, and no.  i never said they were right.  i said you were insulting.


	Alright, maybe I was.  Apologies.  Perhaps "egomaniac pinheads
	too self centered tolower themselves to talk to someone who 
	mightbe able topoint out how stupid their plot assertions are
	and make them re-write it because they're too lazy or ashamed"
	was a little strong.

	Yeah.  Ok, it was.  And so was that last crack.  But somehow,
	I don't think that just because they're the only offering that
	they're somehow sacrosanct and above any criticism.  They 
	are NOT.  
	
	I am disappointed that a much hyped product turned out to
	be Little Space Station On The Prarie, but with poorer writing.  

	Writing makes the show.  The writers for TNG have 30 years of
	SF literature (or more), movies and television to draw upon,
	yet they chose to make a show that was little better
	(technically) than Battlestar Galactica or Buck Rodgers
	(both of which I loved because they had _action_ to offset
	the bunk) but instead of making it an action show, they
	are obsessedwith making it some humanistic sociology study
	course.


>>>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.

>they do not care about reviews.  they only care about ratings,
>because that's all the sponsers care about.


	Real pride in their work, huh?  Doesn't it bother you that
	they're producing this crap and will make no attempts to do
	better because they can "slide by" with what they've got now?

	Isn't it the least bit insulting that they, knowing that there 
	isn't any other even *remotely* decent sf show on television,
	feel just dandy producing some world-class crap because they 
	know that their audience will watch it anyway?  

	Well hell, maybe I'm old fashioned.  I've always felt that
	if you're going to do a job, you should do the best you can
	with the materials you've got.  The only materials involved
	in being internally consistent and (somewhat, I'm not asking
	for a physics class on TV) scientifically accurate are the
	imaginations and minds of the writers.  Given this, they
	really have no excuse for not being both.

	I like TNG.  I watch it every week, and even catch the reruns 
	when I'm bored. there are episodes so bad that I wont watch
	them once I've seen them once, but these are few and far
	between.  

	There's reading, but you can only read so much, and it 
	takes more than an hour per book.  It's nice to sit down,
	relax and watch a bit of TV, or listen while doing 
	homework.  

	As for reviews...

	They *do* care about reviews.  If the show is truly bad
	(and the premier was pretty bad, but even I am going to watch
	another couple of episodes--because I remember Encounter at
	Farpoint) they will lose their viewing audience--because in
	this case there IS an alternative--TNG (well, re-runs) and
	soon Babylon 5.  The fact that they went ahead with this boneheaded
	plotline knowing full well that they were going to have some 
	competition *reeks* of incompetence. 

>>>calling them "deluded egomaniacs" is 
>>>waaaayy out of line, and makes _you_ look rather petulant;
>
> >it's about as accurate as I can get without borrowing from myself
> >("pinheaded mouthbreathers") or someone else ("sociology types").
>
>oh grow up.  they are not deluded nor are they egomaniacs.
>you don't even know these people (as you admitted in another post).
>why are you so quick to judge their personalities?


	Personality comes through their plots.  The fact that none of them
	know even a smidgen of the science they venture to write about
	gives, IMHO, a pretty good picture.  

	Then there's the moralistic drug episode, the homosexuality 
	episode, the global warming episode, the ozone-hole episode
	<and so on and so on>.  I think these give a pretty good indication
	of the type of writer that we're dealing with (terribly eager to
	share their "deep" philosophy of human nature with us lowly 
	'viewers'..)

	How difficult would it be for one or two of them to read a copy
	of Schrodengers cat or Brief History of Time?  Or even an introductory
	chemistry text so they can stop making up new elements?

	Might take a few hours of their time one weekend.  


>i believe that you have no real idea what they must contend with
>to get a show on the air.
>
>you seem to be ready for "you're so smart, how come YOU aren't writing?".


	I generally prepare for the obvious cliche comeback.  Glad
	you didn't chose to use it.


> >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.
>
>you have no idea, do you?  of course they work with other people,
>but the writers have to come up with *ideas* for sets that can be made
>within budget and on-time. 


	Nope.  The writers say, "We want a scene in a forest.  And we
	want lightning.  Yeah.  And the water.  Ok, now what's the
	dialog?"

	Set design, layout, lighting and construction is NOT the
	responsibility of the writers, unless the TNG producers 
	don't know jack about television production. 

	Writers, typically, give the set crew the *minimal* 
	description, because they tend to be very _bad_ at knowing
	what kind of set works, and even worse when it comes to
	lighting.  

	"Two kilngon ships flying over a sun, one shoots the other"

	The special effects crew works from there.  That is, after
	all, their specialty.

	Their only concerns, other than storyline, are 
	that they have to limit special effects (combat scenes,
	any scenes involving the models--but not transporter effects 
	and the like) and they can't bring on the guest stars 
	too often (Q, Trois mom, etc) because that gets too expensive.

	Not a big deal.  Certainly not some terrible weight to carry
	on their shoulders.


> they have to describe the special effects
>they want to the FX crew.   


	No.  They describe what they *want*.  The SE crew comes 
	up with what it looks like.  For instance, the satan-lady-comes
	back-to-control-the-planet episode, they say "We have her
	turn into a red, satan like beast".  Costuming and SE takes
	over from there.


>they have to balance their script to end on
>a dramatic note every twelve minutes or so.  


	Soap-opera writing.  Such policies are not necessary.


>they have to develop the
>entire plot (build-up, gist, resolution) to fit within the overall
>proscribed time limit of ~ fifty minutes.


	Plot first, edit later.  That's the *first* thing you learn
	in a scriptwriting course.  Oh, you have to keep in mind
	how much time you have, but you most definately do NOT
	sit down and say, "Ok, this is the scene where data comes
	out of the closet.  We need to fit it into 5 minutes, any ideas?"

	The fact that their shows are *so* disjointed (long beginnings,
	short climax, minimal or absent conclusion) shows that they're
	not even very good writers, ignoring the SF standpoint.  Look
	at some other shows, and you'll find this type of irregular
	progression on very few of the high-budget shows.  Even sit-coms
	are generally smoother.  Like I said, this is the classic 
	Soap Opera disease, and it shows the poor skill of the writers
	(or the editors).

	How many times have you watched an episode of ST and said to
	yourself, "Well, hell, they could have shortened that long 
	boring scene at the beginning to ad a conclusion to the
	end that was more than just 'Well, number one, as it turns out
	these vile aliens who brainwashed us had been at war with the
	poor innocent aliens we just attacked for a thousand years--ha ha--
	and now we're headed back to starbase 123." [roll credits].

	They do this *all* the time.  I think part of the reason is that
	they're afraid to do two parters more often, even if they keep writing
	scripts that should be filmed as two part episodes.

	Of course, making it a two parter doesn't always help.  Take
	a look at the mess they made in terms of the soap-opera type
	slow-fast-faster-done timing with the Locutus/Borg episodes. 
	All that slow time to build up to a quick and easy ending.  

	To be fair, they've done a lot of good episodes as well, but 
	most of their more fun episodes have been episodes where they
	specifically *stayed away* from the science fiction aspect of
	the show and went only with the human interaction parts. 



>ALL of these are more important TO THEM (writers, directors, producers)
>than scientific accuracy.  

	The writers should be concerned with the quality of the
	product.  Anybody can produce trash, and I'm *sure* that they
	like to think they're producing some highbrow entertainment.  
	The truth is, though, that they're not.  They're producing psuedo
	intellectual drama for people who don't have the patrience/interest
	in the other choices, or are tired of comedies.  

	I do not disagree that there are issues that are equal to
	or greater in importance than scientific accuracy (which
	was really only 1/2 of my complaint--the other is internal
	consistency, which they do a miserable job at), but 
	rather would point out that the two (scientific accuracy of the
	storyline and production requirements) have nothing whatsoever
	to do with one another.  


>can you agree with this sentence?  assuming so,
>can you also agree that their viewpoint is the only one which can be 
>correct in a market-driven economy?  if not, why SHOULD science be more
>important than the items i've listed, since no one is paying for it?


	You don't seem to get it.  It would not COST them anything in
	terms of time or money to bring the shows a little closer
	to reality.  What it would take is literate writers, of which 
	there are plenty (you don't see anything like the major gaffes 	
	you see in TNG in even the cheapest no-name sf novels).  There
	is no valid reason for them to have hired people for TNG or DS9
	that were this ignorant.  

	It's not a matter of "paying for it" because there would be no 
	extra cost if they had hired competent writers in the first place.


> >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.  
>
>so?  is there some reason you added this sentence to your post?


	Yep.  You just missed it.


>>> . . .  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.
>
>no, it is not AS IMPORTANT as getting the show done.


	The two are not in competition.  Please explain how the
	two can *possibly* comflict with one another.


> >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).
>
>how about you?  you certainly think you know it all.


	Whoops.  There it is (thought you had decided to refrain
	from the most cliche of all responses).  

	I wont bother with this one.


> >chose not to.  Now, either they're too stupid (deliberately so)
> >to determine which writers to hire, or they're hiring friends
> >(and not worrying about quality).  I could believe either
> >possibility. 
>
>or maybe, just maybe, you don't really know what their job is like.


	Maybe you need to take some production classes and find out
	for yourself.


>maybe they don't have time for the research (i.e., calling some
>freshman physics major).  they don't CARE because it DOESN'T MATTER.


	It does matter.  The only thing, really, seperating ST:TNG 
	from SpaceRangers is budget.  Not plot lines (ST did their
	own drug episode), not intent (make money).  Budget.  They
	can hire better actors, build better sets and do better special 
	effects.  It is almost an affront to common decency that they 
	squander these resources producing something amusing when it 
	could be amusing AND interesting.  

	Well, maybe outlook (dark future vs. one of happy-shining-joy).


> >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.
>
>the conversation between the wormhole-aliens and sisko was an excellent
>display of a human's first encounter with a radically-different race.


	No it wasn't.  It was dumb.  I've read better first-contact
	dialogs in trash SF novels that are decades old.  Lesse,
	if you want cheap-and-low but still better than DS9, consider
	the Doona books, Starbridge, etc.  All produced by first time
	SF writers (well, the Doona books were written by a veteran and
	a newie, and the plots bit) and better than that "<blah>, What 
	Is This?" nonsense that ST:DS9 managed to spew.



-- 
      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.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv