View Single Post
Old September 11 2013, 02:33 AM   #37
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Did TNG's Early Scope Shrink?

Dream wrote: View Post
I don't think that would have worked. It would have been different, but taking an ENTIRE season just to get into space? Not very exciting.
That depends. Imagine something like HBO's From the Earth to the Moon miniseries, say, but with warp drive. Plus the social and historical dynamics of humanity dealing with the Vulcans' paternalism, explored more fully by showing us what life on Earth was like. There was a lot of potential there. And one can't fault the creators for being willing to take a risk.

Stop acting like first run syndication is the best thing ever.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm simply pointing out a relative difference between two specific pairs of shows, not asserting some absolutist, universal claim. I don't believe in reducing everything to black and white, to opposing extremes. That is not the way the universe works. Most questions are far more nuanced and multifaceted than that. So please stop trying to make this into a fight. I have no desire for that. I'm just trying to explore the facets of the question.

There are a ton of forgotten terrible first run syndication shows, and shows like "Earth Final Conflict" and "Andromeda" which completely collapsed in terms of good writing after their first seasons.
Yes, because the particular studio that produced them meddled relentlessly in their productions and thus undermined the writing. But again, there are no simple absolutes here; it's a case-by-case thing. In the case of Tribune Entertainment, all their shows suffered from extreme studio meddling. But in the case of Paramount Television, at least where TNG and DS9 were concerned, they meddled less in the production than UPN did. Key word: less. No absolutes, no black-and-white extremes -- a relative difference. You're correct that it would be absurd to say that syndication as a whole is always better than network, which is why that's absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm merely discussing the particular case of the four modern Star Trek shows. Nothing I say is intended to be a blanket generalization beyond those four cases.

Indeed, maybe the reason we haven't is because the producers were fighting the network and/or the studio fiercely and it just would make things look too bad if the battles were publicized. We just don't know.
Where is your evidence of this?
Please read my statement again. I did not assert it as a statement of fact. On the contrary, I offered it as a hypothetical alternative possibility in order to underline that we do not actually know the facts. Any assumptions we make are purely speculative. I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong -- I'm saying we do not know. And in the absence of hard evidence, the decent thing to do is to give people the benefit of the doubt, to presume them innocent.

So... now you're accepting my premise when before you were rejecting it? I'm confused.
I'm saying both the VOY writers and UPN are to blame. You seem to be saying the VOY writers were victims of a big bad network.
On the contrary -- didn't I explicitly say in my last post, "Few things are ever so simplistic as to have only one cause?" You're completely misreading my intentions, evidently because you want to interpret this conversation as a fight between extreme positions. But that's not the conversation I'm trying to have.

Perhaps we should just drop it. This is supposed to be a thread about TNG, and I fear we've dragged it off course.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote