[DS9] Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Second Sight"

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Nov 26, 1993, 10:07:18 PM11/26/93
to
WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information for DS9's
"Second Sight". Those not wishing to see spoilers even once, let alone
twice, should stop reading the article here and now.

So. Here we are. And ... just what was the point of that?

DS9 has, in general, been split down the middle this season. The shows have
either been exceptional, best-of-Trek items (such as the first two parts of
the opening arc and "Necessary Evil") or things which have left me with a
feeling of "why bother?", such as "Invasive Procedures" and "Rules of
Acquisition". With the exception of "Melora", nothing's been flat-out *bad*,
but as a general rule DS9 has been either terrific or pointless this year for
me.

"Second Sight" falls pretty firmly in the latter camp, I think. There's not
much in the way of specifics to complain about, but neither is there really
much of anything to highlight as good. The whole thing felt like an hour's
worth of filler, which is not the best of feelings to have about a show.

Part of the problem is that, while I like seeing Sisko as commander, I don't
often connect to him as a PERSON. (Part of that is because the baseball
theme doesn't do a thing for me, but not all of it.) Thus, Sisko-heavy shows
where he has difficult decisions, a la "Battle Lines" or "In The Hands of the
Prophets" or "The Homecoming" are often compelling; but shows that deal with
Sisko the _man_ often aren't, generally. Thus, despite the fact that Avery
Brooks did seem to be putting a lot of effort into this, I really couldn't
get myself interested in the Sisko/Fenna relationship -- none of it felt
real.

Of course, some of that could be that Salli Elise Richardson was somewhat
less than wonderful as Fenna/Nidell. She seemed to be sleepwalking through a
lot of the role, particularly as Nidell -- but there wasn't a single time
when I thought to myself "this is an interesting character!". Unfortunately,
in love stories, chemistry is a huge issue -- and Richardson joins the ranks
of whoever played Aquiel, among others, of people that made a relationship
seem like day-old bread.

That, no doubt, added to the larger issue: I didn't buy the Sisko romance
for a second. Sure, it makes sense that at some point he might have feelings
for someone in the post-Jennifer era, and he might have some issues to deal
with in that. But I do _not_ believe that those feelings would suddenly be
sparked in a one-minute conversation at the end of a long day. Nothing that
serious develops _that_ fast. Since I didn't buy that, the whole plot
surrounding it fell apart.

Richard Kiley was probably the only real source of energy in the show, but he
went too far in the _other_ direction. While he was supposed to be annoying
to the regulars (that, at least, was shown beautifully just before the
banquet), I don't think *I* was supposed to be that annoyed. I was -- and I
happen to like Richard Kiley most of the time, too. The character was helped
a lot by the fact that he at least _knew_ he was a major pain in the ass and
simply didn't care most of the time, but the overenthusiasm made him far less
of a plus than he really should have been.

Lest I sound completely negative, though, there are character moments I
definitely liked. The little Kira/Sisko exchange about trying to back out of
the banquet rang true (not to mention funny), as did Bashir's "well, I kinda
like him" attitude. Jake's description of his dream felt mildly incongruous,
but had some power to it; and this was one of those rare occasions where I
really felt like Dax and Sisko _were_ good friends. All those were pluses;
unfortunately, they were the smaller portion of the show.

Then, there's the plot. The main plot at least held together, but also held
no surprises; I had Fenna pegged as Nidell's hidden side about, oh, twenty
milliseconds after Nidell didn't recognize Sisko, right down to Nidell being
a telepath. The subplot was just plain silly; even with the great plot
device of protomatter, I have a lot of difficulty swallowing the explanation
about how they'll reignite a star. (I also notice, with no small chagrin,
that it's not only the Enterprise that lets shuttles slip out without so much
as a by-your-leave; apparently it's standard goofy procedure on all Starfleet
vessels.)

There was also no real surprise in Seyetik sacrificing himself to save
Nidell, except perhaps in the sheer histrionics of Seyetik yelling "let there
be light!" right as he crashed. (By the way, crashing into _rock_ if he was
heading for a star is a pretty silly thing to show, too.) If the character
moments are wonderful, I can usually turn at least half a blind eye to
predictability, even on this level; but here, where the most crucial
character moments were dull, this just made matters worse.

I'm afraid that about covers that. Except perhaps for Kiley's overacting and
a couple of the most egregious plot problems (e.g. the shuttle-stealing),
very little about "Second Sight" struck me as bad. However, even less of it
struck me as good -- I simply wasn't struck by it at all.

One minor short take, then, and I'll leave you to Thanksgiving leftovers.
:-) That issue is this: Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible. No stardate system ever
created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
Wolf-359 battle. In the grand scheme of things, it's something easily fixed
(say, make it their twentieth wedding anniversary or something), but it's a
pretty serious editor's glitch, in my opinion.

So, on that happy note, a summing-up:

Plot: Few holes, but zero surprises.
Plot Handling: Some nice camera work here and there from Alexander Singer,
but I found myself looking at my watch a lot more than usual.
Characterization: The subordinate characters were pretty good, but the three
main ones were either dull or irritating.

OVERALL: Call it a 3.5. I figured this would be a letdown after "Necessary
Evil", but not on this scale. Ooch.

NEXT WEEK:

Bajor is the not-so-promising Promised Land for some...

Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Yes, well, all living things would be pertinent to our discussion. Excuse
me."
-- "The Remains of the Day"
--
Copyright 1993, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...

Marguerite Petersen

unread,
Nov 26, 1993, 11:28:22 PM11/26/93
to
In article <2d6g96$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,

Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information for DS9's
>"Second Sight". Those not wishing to see spoilers even once, let alone
>twice, should stop reading the article here and now.

>So. Here we are. And ... just what was the point of that?

I agree. It was so bad I almost fell asleep.


>DS9 has, in general, been split down the middle this season. The shows have
>either been exceptional, best-of-Trek items (such as the first two parts of
>the opening arc and "Necessary Evil") or things which have left me with a
>feeling of "why bother?", such as "Invasive Procedures" and "Rules of
>Acquisition". With the exception of "Melora", nothing's been flat-out *bad*,
>but as a general rule DS9 has been either terrific or pointless this year for
>me.

Again I agree. This episode had possibilities *but* they never went
anywhere.

>"Second Sight" falls pretty firmly in the latter camp, I think. There's not
>much in the way of specifics to complain about, but neither is there really
>much of anything to highlight as good. The whole thing felt like an hour's
>worth of filler, which is not the best of feelings to have about a show.
>
>Part of the problem is that, while I like seeing Sisko as commander, I don't
>often connect to him as a PERSON. (Part of that is because the baseball
>theme doesn't do a thing for me, but not all of it.) Thus, Sisko-heavy shows
>where he has difficult decisions, a la "Battle Lines" or "In The Hands of the
>Prophets" or "The Homecoming" are often compelling; but shows that deal with
>Sisko the _man_ often aren't, generally. Thus, despite the fact that Avery
>Brooks did seem to be putting a lot of effort into this, I really couldn't
>get myself interested in the Sisko/Fenna relationship -- none of it felt
>real.

I also have to agree with this. I don't know why Sisko as a *person*
seems flat to me especially since Brooks does seem to be putting effort
into the role. I did *want* the relationship to be interesting, both
for his sake and the viewer, but it just didn't *click*.

>Of course, some of that could be that Salli Elise Richardson was somewhat
>less than wonderful as Fenna/Nidell. She seemed to be sleepwalking through a
>lot of the role, particularly as Nidell -- but there wasn't a single time
>when I thought to myself "this is an interesting character!". Unfortunately,
>in love stories, chemistry is a huge issue -- and Richardson joins the ranks
>of whoever played Aquiel, among others, of people that made a relationship
>seem like day-old bread.

I thought the idea that Sisko might be experiencing some fantasies
regarding a love interest by now (after all it *has* been a while
since his wife died) was plausible but *this* particular fantasy
didn't seem to have much substance. As Fenna, the actress had more
mystery about her than attraction, (although I'm sure there are
plenty of viewers who felt her attire was attraction enough). :-)
And as Nidell, she wasn't very interesting at all.

>That, no doubt, added to the larger issue: I didn't buy the Sisko romance
>for a second. Sure, it makes sense that at some point he might have feelings
>for someone in the post-Jennifer era, and he might have some issues to deal
>with in that. But I do _not_ believe that those feelings would suddenly be
>sparked in a one-minute conversation at the end of a long day. Nothing that
>serious develops _that_ fast. Since I didn't buy that, the whole plot
>surrounding it fell apart.

Well, pure lust might be sparked by a one-minute conversation, but I
agree with you that something truly serious would probably need a bit
more than that.

>Richard Kiley was probably the only real source of energy in the show, but he
>went too far in the _other_ direction. While he was supposed to be annoying
>to the regulars (that, at least, was shown beautifully just before the
>banquet), I don't think *I* was supposed to be that annoyed. I was -- and I
>happen to like Richard Kiley most of the time, too. The character was helped
>a lot by the fact that he at least _knew_ he was a major pain in the ass and
>simply didn't care most of the time, but the overenthusiasm made him far less
>of a plus than he really should have been.

Again, I agree. Boring aren't I. :-)
Kiley was supposed to be a pain in the ass to the crewmembers but he
was just so much of a pain in the ass for me as well that I wasn't
particularly disturbed that he committed suicide. I almost felt that
it was about time! I don't think that is what the writers intended.
I believe we were *supposed* to feel *something* for an individual
who has reached the pinnacle of his career (and knows it) and who
hasn't much left to prove. (ala Daystrom in TOS's _The Ultimate
Computer_) I instead felt extremely annoyed.

>Lest I sound completely negative, though, there are character moments I
>definitely liked. The little Kira/Sisko exchange about trying to back out of
>the banquet rang true (not to mention funny), as did Bashir's "well, I kinda
>like him" attitude. Jake's description of his dream felt mildly incongruous,
>but had some power to it; and this was one of those rare occasions where I
>really felt like Dax and Sisko _were_ good friends. All those were pluses;
>unfortunately, they were the smaller portion of the show.

Again agreed. All of the above were very nice.

>Then, there's the plot. The main plot at least held together, but also held
>no surprises; I had Fenna pegged as Nidell's hidden side about, oh, twenty
>milliseconds after Nidell didn't recognize Sisko, right down to Nidell being
>a telepath. The subplot was just plain silly; even with the great plot
>device of protomatter, I have a lot of difficulty swallowing the explanation
>about how they'll reignite a star. (I also notice, with no small chagrin,
>that it's not only the Enterprise that lets shuttles slip out without so much
>as a by-your-leave; apparently it's standard goofy procedure on all Starfleet
>vessels.)

I had Fenna pegged as Nidell's hidden side a lot sooner. Like about
the first time she ran away from Sisko. I'm not sure why I had it
figured out that soon. Maybe I'm just the suspicious sort. :-)

>There was also no real surprise in Seyetik sacrificing himself to save
>Nidell, except perhaps in the sheer histrionics of Seyetik yelling "let there
>be light!" right as he crashed. (By the way, crashing into _rock_ if he was
>heading for a star is a pretty silly thing to show, too.) If the character
>moments are wonderful, I can usually turn at least half a blind eye to
>predictability, even on this level; but here, where the most crucial
>character moments were dull, this just made matters worse.

Well maybe they were trying to generate a memorable quote like Khan's
in ST II. ("From Hell's Heart etc.). But if they were, it didn't work.
Or maybe someone has seen too much "Dark Star". :-)

>I'm afraid that about covers that. Except perhaps for Kiley's overacting and
>a couple of the most egregious plot problems (e.g. the shuttle-stealing),
>very little about "Second Sight" struck me as bad. However, even less of it
>struck me as good -- I simply wasn't struck by it at all.
>
>One minor short take, then, and I'll leave you to Thanksgiving leftovers.
>:-) That issue is this: Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
>anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible. No stardate system ever
>created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
>stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
>Wolf-359 battle. In the grand scheme of things, it's something easily fixed
>(say, make it their twentieth wedding anniversary or something), but it's a
>pretty serious editor's glitch, in my opinion.

Well, maybe they had originally planned on *showing* this episode
later in the schedule? Just a thought.

>So, on that happy note, a summing-up:
>
>Plot: Few holes, but zero surprises.
>Plot Handling: Some nice camera work here and there from Alexander Singer,
> but I found myself looking at my watch a lot more than usual.
>Characterization: The subordinate characters were pretty good, but the three
> main ones were either dull or irritating.
>
>OVERALL: Call it a 3.5. I figured this would be a letdown after "Necessary
>Evil", but not on this scale. Ooch.
>

I give it a 3. Just to be difficult. :-)

Marg

--
*******************************************************************
"Insufficient facts always invites danger, Captain."-Spock in Space Seed
Member PSEB Captain's Yeoman (First Shift) JLP SoL
Marg Petersen pet...@csos.orst.edu

Ted McCoy

unread,
Nov 27, 1993, 2:14:26 AM11/27/93
to
In article <2d6g96$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information for DS9's
>"Second Sight". Those not wishing to see spoilers even once, let alone
>twice, should stop reading the article here and now.

>So. Here we are. And ... just what was the point of that?

How about good drama and character development?


>DS9 has, in general, been split down the middle this season. The shows have
>either been exceptional, best-of-Trek items (such as the first two parts of
>the opening arc and "Necessary Evil") or things which have left me with a
>feeling of "why bother?", such as "Invasive Procedures" and "Rules of
>Acquisition". With the exception of "Melora", nothing's been flat-out *bad*,
>but as a general rule DS9 has been either terrific or pointless this year for
>me.

Looks like I like DS9 a lot more than you do. I've felt that all of the
episodes since Duet except for Melora and Rules of Acquisition were
best-of-Trek quality (not top 25 Trek, but on the level of "this is a
classic Trek episode").

>"Second Sight" falls pretty firmly in the latter camp, I think. There's not
>much in the way of specifics to complain about, but neither is there really
>much of anything to highlight as good. The whole thing felt like an hour's
>worth of filler, which is not the best of feelings to have about a show.
>
>Part of the problem is that, while I like seeing Sisko as commander, I don't
>often connect to him as a PERSON. (Part of that is because the baseball
>theme doesn't do a thing for me, but not all of it.) Thus, Sisko-heavy shows
>where he has difficult decisions, a la "Battle Lines" or "In The Hands of the
>Prophets" or "The Homecoming" are often compelling; but shows that deal with
>Sisko the _man_ often aren't, generally. Thus, despite the fact that Avery
>Brooks did seem to be putting a lot of effort into this, I really couldn't
>get myself interested in the Sisko/Fenna relationship -- none of it felt
>real.

I really liked Sisko as a person this time. And also in the pilot. Aside
from that, there's been very little Sisko as a person development. Except
for his relationship with Dax. I found this episode extremely compelling.

>Of course, some of that could be that Salli Elise Richardson was somewhat
>less than wonderful as Fenna/Nidell. She seemed to be sleepwalking through a
>lot of the role, particularly as Nidell -- but there wasn't a single time
>when I thought to myself "this is an interesting character!". Unfortunately,
>in love stories, chemistry is a huge issue -- and Richardson joins the ranks
>of whoever played Aquiel, among others, of people that made a relationship
>seem like day-old bread.

She definitely wasn't sleepwalking through the role of Fenna. As Nidell,
I think what you're calling "sleepwalking" was actually just the way her
character was supposed to be portrayed. There had to be no doubt that
Nidell and Sisko could not have a romance, so she was played entirely
differently than Fenna. I really enjoyed Fenna's character, although
there wasn't too much to her (literally). Nidell was also interesting,
although she wasn't really developed that much beyond the dialogue about her.

>That, no doubt, added to the larger issue: I didn't buy the Sisko romance
>for a second. Sure, it makes sense that at some point he might have feelings
>for someone in the post-Jennifer era, and he might have some issues to deal
>with in that. But I do _not_ believe that those feelings would suddenly be
>sparked in a one-minute conversation at the end of a long day. Nothing that
>serious develops _that_ fast. Since I didn't buy that, the whole plot
>surrounding it fell apart.

First, she apparently was reading him telepathically to be the woman he
wanted, to say the things he wanted. From that perspective, I think the
attraction was believable. That plus the fact that Sisko was dealing with
his loss of Jennifer through the romance -- it was partly a step in his
recovery. Beyond that, Sisko seemed to realize that things were
developing to fast and too perfectly, and he realized that something
wasn't right. (And yes, things can develop that fast!)

>Richard Kiley was probably the only real source of energy in the show, but he
>went too far in the _other_ direction. While he was supposed to be annoying
>to the regulars (that, at least, was shown beautifully just before the
>banquet), I don't think *I* was supposed to be that annoyed. I was -- and I
>happen to like Richard Kiley most of the time, too. The character was helped
>a lot by the fact that he at least _knew_ he was a major pain in the ass and
>simply didn't care most of the time, but the overenthusiasm made him far less
>of a plus than he really should have been.

I really really enjoyed watching him -- I didn't find him annoying at all.

>Lest I sound completely negative, though, there are character moments I
>definitely liked. The little Kira/Sisko exchange about trying to back out of
>the banquet rang true (not to mention funny), as did Bashir's "well, I kinda
>like him" attitude. Jake's description of his dream felt mildly incongruous,
>but had some power to it; and this was one of those rare occasions where I
>really felt like Dax and Sisko _were_ good friends. All those were pluses;
>unfortunately, they were the smaller portion of the show.
>
>Then, there's the plot. The main plot at least held together, but also held
>no surprises; I had Fenna pegged as Nidell's hidden side about, oh, twenty
>milliseconds after Nidell didn't recognize Sisko, right down to Nidell being
>a telepath. The subplot was just plain silly; even with the great plot
>device of protomatter, I have a lot of difficulty swallowing the explanation
>about how they'll reignite a star. (I also notice, with no small chagrin,
>that it's not only the Enterprise that lets shuttles slip out without so much
>as a by-your-leave; apparently it's standard goofy procedure on all Starfleet
>vessels.)

Whoa, wait a second -- you had every aspect of the Fenna-is-Nidell subplot
figured out after Nidell didn't recognize Sisko? It was obvious that
there was some link between Fenna and Niddel and that Fenna was some sort
of hidden side to Nidell, but you immediately realized that this was
basically a unique form of "mental illness" (or mental distress or
whatever) right from the start? Are you sure you weren't just saying "I
can see the basic direction this is going and I don't like the episode --
how predictable"? I really found the details of the Fenna-is-Nidell plot
very interesting and very powerful. Especially from Seyetik's point of
view of the problem.

>There was also no real surprise in Seyetik sacrificing himself to save
>Nidell, except perhaps in the sheer histrionics of Seyetik yelling "let there
>be light!" right as he crashed. (By the way, crashing into _rock_ if he was
>heading for a star is a pretty silly thing to show, too.) If the character
>moments are wonderful, I can usually turn at least half a blind eye to
>predictability, even on this level; but here, where the most crucial
>character moments were dull, this just made matters worse.

Frankly, I was surprised -- I expected Nidell to die as a way to back out
of a possible love interest for Sisko. "Let there be light!" was
certainly consistent with Seyetik's personality. Emotionally I found his
death to be pretty powerful -- plus the whole special effects sequence
with the star almost literally took my breath away, something Sci Fi TV
rarely does.

>I'm afraid that about covers that. Except perhaps for Kiley's overacting and
>a couple of the most egregious plot problems (e.g. the shuttle-stealing),
>very little about "Second Sight" struck me as bad. However, even less of it
>struck me as good -- I simply wasn't struck by it at all.

I'll grant you the shuttle-stealing...but I didn't think Kiley overacted...

>One minor short take, then, and I'll leave you to Thanksgiving leftovers.
>:-) That issue is this: Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
>anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible. No stardate system ever
>created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
>stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
>Wolf-359 battle. In the grand scheme of things, it's something easily fixed
>(say, make it their twentieth wedding anniversary or something), but it's a
>pretty serious editor's glitch, in my opinion.

Did they give a stardate for this episode?

>So, on that happy note, a summing-up:
>
>Plot: Few holes, but zero surprises.

Few holes...and I liked the direction the plot went. As far as the
characters went, I was surprised a number of times (Seyetik's death, the
revelation of why Nidel was creating Fenna, the way the show resolved
Sisko's possible love interest). Mostly, I was just glad it wasn't
another weird-alien-from-Gamma-Quadrant episode, which is what I was
afraid it would be from the pilot.

>Plot Handling: Some nice camera work here and there from Alexander Singer,
> but I found myself looking at my watch a lot more than usual.

I found the show fairly captivating.

>Characterization: The subordinate characters were pretty good, but the three
> main ones were either dull or irritating.

Nidell/Fenna was mostly a plot device...an interesting concept for a
person, but never really developed as such, except in regard to the other
characters. But I really enjoyed the other two main characters. And I
found their interactions extremely interesting.

>
>OVERALL: Call it a 3.5. I figured this would be a letdown after "Necessary
>Evil", but not on this scale. Ooch.

Yikes, I would consider this classic Trek. My reaction after the show
ended was "wow, that was incredible." 9 or 9.5 easily. Maybe I'll change
my mind if I watch it again, though...

>NEXT WEEK:

>Bajor is the not-so-promising Promised Land for some...

Looks potentially interesting...

>Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
>BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
>INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
>UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
>"Yes, well, all living things would be pertinent to our discussion. Excuse
>me."
> -- "The Remains of the Day"
>--
>Copyright 1993, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...


--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Nadia Dez

unread,
Nov 27, 1993, 10:40:56 AM11/27/93
to

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

I think that Tim is off his rocker this time, this episode was interesting
in a disturbing way, the story was pretty good, the suicide of the
scientist at the end surprised me, the way things were built was way
less contrived than TNG, little technobabble, a love story where the
loved one disappeers in a beleivable way unlike TNG again, the story seamed
to flow and ebb misteriously. I think that many are so used to the wam bam
implausibility that strecht the imagination by their sheer unbeleivability
that they feel jaded if it isn't there, in that DS9 is much better than TNG.

I gave it 8.5, lost most of its points because the scientist was a little
too over the top.

Joe Foster of Borg

unread,
Nov 27, 1993, 5:08:08 PM11/27/93
to
In article <1993Nov27.1...@vlsi.polymtl.ca>, d40...@info.polymtl.ca (Nadia Dez) writes:

> SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

> I think that Tim is off his rocker this time, this episode was interesting
> in a disturbing way, the story was pretty good, the suicide of the
> scientist at the end surprised me, the way things were built was way
> less contrived than TNG, little technobabble, a love story where the
> loved one disappeers in a beleivable way unlike TNG again, the story seamed
> to flow and ebb misteriously. I think that many are so used to the wam bam
> implausibility that strecht the imagination by their sheer unbeleivability
> that they feel jaded if it isn't there, in that DS9 is much better than TNG.

Unfortunately, protomatter is back. Aaargh!

> I gave it 8.5, lost most of its points because the scientist was a little
> too over the top.

He was? I didn't think so. But then, I've had the misfortune of
taking courses from people who could make him look positively
humble. :-(

--
Joe Foster (j...@bftsi0.uucp)
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

Timothy W. Lynch

unread,
Nov 29, 1993, 11:13:52 PM11/29/93
to
gi...@mala.bc.ca (Arnold G. Gill) writes:

>In article <2d6g96$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>> Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
>> anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible. No stardate system ever
>> created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
>> stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
>> Wolf-359 battle.

> Then you must also have some exceptions to the DS9 pilot - I seem to
>remember them saying at that time that it had been 3 years since Wolf-359.

And, _roughly_, that was the case. Two and a half years is three, to the
nearest year.

Saying _exactly_ three years later would have annoyed me, yes.

Tim Lynch

Si Rowe

unread,
Nov 30, 1993, 1:08:24 AM11/30/93
to
Below, I shall create a spoiler from dead cyberspace. Aren't I brilliant?

In article <14...@bftsi0.UUCP>, j...@bftsi0.UUCP (Joe Foster of Borg) wrote:

> Unfortunately, protomatter is back. Aaargh!

Actually, I thought that was a nice touch. It makes sense that eighty years
later, they would have developed the technology to use protomatter safely
and effectively. Or, if it's still unstable, it makes sense that they could
use that instability to refuel a dead star rather than maintain the
delicate balance of an entire planetary ecosystem (as in STII-III).

For that matter, is it possible that Seyetik's planet designs were
implemented by some descendant of the Genesis device?

Anyway, it was a cool effect.

Yours, Si Rowe
--------------------------------------------\ sir...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
"Wooly thinking, Doctor!" \--------\
"Yes, but very comforting when worn close to the skin."| Si Rowe: not just
-- the Master and the Doctor, _Logopolis_ | a couple of Greek
**November 23, 1993: 30th anniversary of _Doctor Who_**| letters!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Todd Horowitz

unread,
Nov 30, 1993, 1:51:20 AM11/30/93
to
In article <2d6g96$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu> wrote:
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information for DS9's
>"Second Sight". Those not wishing to see spoilers even once, let alone
>twice, should stop reading the article here and now.


>Of course, some of that could be that Salli Elise Richardson was somewhat
>less than wonderful as Fenna/Nidell. She seemed to be sleepwalking through a
>lot of the role, particularly as Nidell -- but there wasn't a single time
>when I thought to myself "this is an interesting character!".

Actually, I found Nidell an interesting character, partially because
she was so reserved, and partially in contrast to the dreadful character of
Fenna. Fenna was the character equivalent of white bread made primarily of
air.


>That, no doubt, added to the larger issue: I didn't buy the Sisko romance
>for a second. Sure, it makes sense that at some point he might have feelings
>for someone in the post-Jennifer era, and he might have some issues to deal
>with in that. But I do _not_ believe that those feelings would suddenly be
>sparked in a one-minute conversation at the end of a long day. Nothing that
>serious develops _that_ fast. Since I didn't buy that, the whole plot
>surrounding it fell apart.

I have to agree here. An incredibly unconvincing relationship. What
DID Sisko see in this Fenna woman? I mean, I'm sure he's horny after 3 or 4
years, but that only goes so far!

>
>Lest I sound completely negative, though, there are character moments I
>definitely liked. The little Kira/Sisko exchange about trying to back out of
>the banquet rang true (not to mention funny), as did Bashir's "well, I kinda
>like him" attitude. Jake's description of his dream felt mildly incongruous,
>but had some power to it; and this was one of those rare occasions where I
>really felt like Dax and Sisko _were_ good friends. All those were pluses;
>unfortunately, they were the smaller portion of the show.

But they were a good sign. This episode reminded me of many TNG shows
from the 5th and 6th (early) seasons, when they would make episodes around
the core of a flimsy, uninteresting and deriviative idea and a bunch of
technobabble, but lavished strong dialogue and acting on them to make the
episode bearable. The Dax-Sisko relationship is finally becoming really
interesting.

>
>Then, there's the plot. The main plot at least held together, but also held
>no surprises; I had Fenna pegged as Nidell's hidden side about, oh, twenty
>milliseconds after Nidell didn't recognize Sisko, right down to Nidell being
>a telepath.

Took me about 40 msec. I was drowsy :)

>
>There was also no real surprise in Seyetik sacrificing himself to save
>Nidell, except perhaps in the sheer histrionics of Seyetik yelling "let there
>be light!" right as he crashed. (By the way, crashing into _rock_ if he was
>heading for a star is a pretty silly thing to show, too.)

Mmmm... it was my impression that they were RE-igniting a dead star,
which might not be radiating in the visible spectrum.

>very little about "Second Sight" struck me as bad. However, even less of it
>struck me as good -- I simply wasn't struck by it at all.
>
>One minor short take, then, and I'll leave you to Thanksgiving leftovers.
>:-) That issue is this: Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
>anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible. No stardate system ever
>created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
>stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
>Wolf-359 battle. In the grand scheme of things, it's something easily fixed
>(say, make it their twentieth wedding anniversary or something), but it's a
>pretty serious editor's glitch, in my opinion.

Except that the premiere of DS9 is explicitly set three years after
Wolf 359, and its been ALMOST a year since then.... its more a matter of
rounding up then a matter of a serious glitch.


>
>
>OVERALL: Call it a 3.5. I figured this would be a letdown after "Necessary
>Evil", but not on this scale. Ooch.

You're too harsh. Give 'em a six.

Was I the only one who felt that this episode had the FEEL of an Old Trek
episode?

todd

Katherine Owen Eldred

unread,
Nov 30, 1993, 1:18:17 PM11/30/93
to

If you know *anything* about 'how Sisko got to DS9,' this post will contain
*no spoilers*. But I will add a few lines anyway...'cause I don't wanna
get flamed....


>
>One minor short take, then, and I'll leave you to Thanksgiving leftovers.
>:-) That issue is this: Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
>anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible. No stardate system ever
>created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
>stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
>Wolf-359 battle. In the grand scheme of things, it's something easily fixed
>(say, make it their twentieth wedding anniversary or something), but it's a
>pretty serious editor's glitch, in my opinion.

Well, maybe I'm stupid, but...it has been four *seasons* since the Wolf
359 battle, right? Or, rather, this is the fourth season since. I
assumed the 'four-year' anniversary was meant to correlate to the
seasonal thing. The 'and change' would make for a fourth 'year.'

Of course I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm glitched meself....

Greg Berigan

unread,
Dec 6, 1993, 8:30:23 PM12/6/93
to
koel...@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Katherine Owen Eldred) writes:
>tly...@juliet.caltech.edu writes:

>If you know *anything* about 'how Sisko got to DS9,' this post will contain
>*no spoilers*. But I will add a few lines anyway...'cause I don't wanna
>get flamed....

Actually, this topic is directed to .tech as it is merely a question
about stardates. However, in .tech, this will need a spoiler marker.



>>That issue is this: Sisko's claim early on that it's the fourth
>>anniversary of Jennifer's death is impossible.

Four years and a day.

>>No stardate system ever
>>created could justify that -- from 99% of the evidence at hand, 1000
>>stardates is one year, and we're only about 3 years and change away from the
>>Wolf-359 battle.

>Well, maybe I'm stupid, but...it has been four *seasons* since the Wolf


>359 battle, right? Or, rather, this is the fourth season since. I
>assumed the 'four-year' anniversary was meant to correlate to the
>seasonal thing. The 'and change' would make for a fourth 'year.'

The specification of 4 years and a day indicates a precision of
measurement to the day, so there's no change to be considered.

Or we could just take their word for it and figure out the equivalence
of stardates to years for this reference. Who out there can supply the
stardate printed in DS9: The Emissary?

(47329.4 - <Wolf 359>) / (4+1/365) == number of stardays in a year

If we're really unlucky, we could be dealing with two leapdays.

--
gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan)

Be articulate! Your new patience will not show up immediately.

U16...@uicvm.uic.edu

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 7:54:42 AM12/7/93
to

In article <2e0mbf$9...@crcnis1.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan)
says:

>Or we could just take their word for it and figure out the equivalence
>of stardates to years for this reference. Who out there can supply the
>stardate printed in DS9: The Emissary?
>
> (47329.4 - <Wolf 359>) / (4+1/365) == number of stardays in a year
>
>If we're really unlucky, we could be dealing with two leapdays.
>
>--
>gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan)
>
>Be articulate! Your new patience will not show up immediately.

DSN "The Emissary" gave 46379.1 as the stardate.

Terry
U16...@uicvm.uic.edu

PENG,PASCAL

unread,
Dec 8, 1993, 5:00:10 AM12/8/93
to
In <93341.065...@uicvm.uic.edu> <U16...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

Yep, this is the stardate of DSN "Emissary" but the disaster at Wolf 359
had happened to occure three years before DSN started. I unfortunatelly don't
have this stardate available (I'd have to pull in the videocassette into my
vcr, but I'd have to leave the university first - and that takes me definetly
too long), but if I remember tonite I'll it look up. Otherwise, stardate of
"Best of both worlds II" should more or less be the same. (If you have or find
a list of the aired episodes.)

---Pascal
ETH Zurich


PENG,PASCAL

unread,
Dec 9, 1993, 4:55:09 AM12/9/93
to
In <CHpns...@bernina.ethz.ch> IM...@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH writes:


Ok, I got the stardate of Wolf 359; it is -based on the shown explaination
text of 'the Emissary'- 43997. That would give -based on the formula above-
832.4 stardays in one year. Isn't it great. But, that would mean that the
stardate 4x832 would switch one starday later to 4(x+1)000. So that would be
pretty unlogical if we compare it with the stardate of Wolf 359 as the starday
(997) is higher than 832 :(

Of course, this are just my thougths (maybe they start not with 4x000 but with
4x168 :))

-Pascal
ethz

Greg Berigan

unread,
Dec 10, 1993, 11:33:16 PM12/10/93
to
IM...@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (PENG,PASCAL) writes:
>gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) says:

::[Stardate 47329.4 was stated to be 4 years and a day after the battle
:: against the Borg at Wolf 359]
::
>>Who out there can supply the stardate [of Wolf 359 battle]?


>>
>> (47329.4 - <Wolf 359>) / (4+1/365) == number of stardays in a year

>Ok, I got the stardate of Wolf 359; it is -based on the shown explaination


>text of 'the Emissary'- 43997. That would give -based on the formula above-
>832.4 stardays in one year. Isn't it great. But, that would mean that the
>stardate 4x832 would switch one starday later to 4(x+1)000.

Hunh? Why should it turn over then? Indeed, the calculation assumes
that it does not. After all, TNG: Family wasn't exactly set in the
winter, was it?

Now we need the stardate to Earth year given in TNG: The Neutral Zone.
With that and the above determined year one could calculate the stardate
for any given year, and vice versa, with an error of approx. 1 year,
perhaps 1/4 year if we sync the seasons to TNG: Family and be very
pedantic on stardate progression in TNG: The Neutral Zone.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages