From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:21:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA

well, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) and i seem to have somthing going here...

>>>	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.  
>>
>>me

 >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.

>>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.

>>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?
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?".

>>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.

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.  they have to describe the special effects
they want to the FX crew.   they have to balance their script to end on
a dramatic note every twelve minutes or so.  they have to develop the
entire plot (build-up, gist, resolution) to fit within the overall
proscribed time limit of ~ fifty minutes.

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

 >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?

>> . . .  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.

 >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.

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

 >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.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv