From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Proposed startrek split & the crossover issue
Summary: Crossovers not as important as we're making them out to be.
Keywords: crossovers, rebuttal
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:17:32 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

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!
	
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.

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.

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.

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.  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.

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