RDM - not the answer

[USS KG5]

I was addressing Babaganoosh's concern that it would be so much like Battlestar Galactica that it would loose its Trek identity.

And, RDM's comments aside, I'm still not convinced that this would not happen.

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven". It all depends on whether you like the finished product.

Lets face it Starbuck, Apollo, Dee and Anders spent the third season acting like twats over their love quadrangle, and yes it did border on "soap". There is however a reason why people watch soaps, they offer a compressed sensationalised take on real life, a bit like hearing a years worth of office gossip on one show.

BSG should not be like this but if it is to portray relatinoships AT ALL, then the participants must act like idiots a lot of the time, I've lost count of the number of times I have seen friends in couples in massive row and wanted to knock their heads together, thats just life.

nuBSG is NOT intended to be the same in style as Star Trek, it is completely different in every conceivable way except they both feature a space ship. If RDM were to make a Trek show he would be required to make something completely different - a very good reason why he would never do it.

The entire reason Trek became formulaic was because it was not willing to break from its weekly formula. I'd have kept watching all seven seasons of Enterprise if it had lasted that long but it never broke new storytelling ground, or character ground for that matter.

BSG is the anti-trek, one of its central principles is the Galactica crew are not the best in the fleet like Kirk's crew. They are not exceptional, they have flaws, they frak a lot up - but in exceptional circumstances they do exceptional things. In this respect it has a lot in common with Joss Whedon's shows.

Also anyone who rates the original BSG over the new one really has some explaining to do - it is cheesy mindless twaddle that can be very entertaining but never had it in it to have the impact of the new show. They say the definition of great art is you either love or hate it, and very little in-between. I think at its best nuBSG slots in nicely.

 

[jimbtnp2]

Pardon me. In looking up the exact quote, RDM doesn't say that explicitly. However, it does seem to be the jist of what he's saying in response to a question about whether Star Trek: Voyager would have been like Battlestar Galactica if he had been the showrunner here:

(Bold added.)

The point is whether he made it like nuBSG or not - it would likely suck - but to a lesser degree and not in the same way
I find him very uncreative and inward focused - we need grand thinking not 'who are the final' five - who cares

1) I wasn't addressing the question of whether or not a Moore Trek series would suck, I was addressing Babaganoosh's concern that it would be so much like Battlestar Galactica that it would loose its Trek identity.

2) I firmly, firmly disagree with you. I find Moore's writing to be insightful, creative, deep, and grand -- far moreso than the cardboard cutouts that pass for good character writing and good plot writing found in much of TNG, VOY, and ENT.

Come on man I can't defend Voy/Enterprise/TNG on strong characters vs Tom and Jerry let alone nuBSG - of course tehy are horrible - Voyager was horrendous

But RDM creative - NO

 

[jimbtnp2]

I was addressing Babaganoosh's concern that it would be so much like Battlestar Galactica that it would loose its Trek identity.

And, RDM's comments aside, I'm still not convinced that this would not happen.

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven". It all depends on whether you like the finished product.

Lets face it Starbuck, Apollo, Dee and Anders spent the third season acting like twats over their love quadrangle, and yes it did border on "soap". There is however a reason why people watch soaps, they offer a compressed sensationalised take on real life, a bit like hearing a years worth of office gossip on one show.

BSG should not be like this but if it is to portray relatinoships AT ALL, then the participants must act like idiots a lot of the time, I've lost count of the number of times I have seen friends in couples in massive row and wanted to knock their heads together, thats just life.

nuBSG is NOT intended to be the same in style as Star Trek, it is completely different in every conceivable way except they both feature a space ship. If RDM were to make a Trek show he would be required to make something completely different - a very good reason why he would never do it.

The entire reason Trek became formulaic was because it was not willing to break from its weekly formula. I'd have kept watching all seven seasons of Enterprise if it had lasted that long but it never broke new storytelling ground, or character ground for that matter.

BSG is the anti-trek, one of its central principles is the Galactica crew are not the best in the fleet like Kirk's crew. They are not exceptional, they have flaws, they frak a lot up - but in exceptional circumstances they do exceptional things. In this respect it has a lot in common with Joss Whedon's shows.

Also anyone who rates the original BSG over the new one really has some explaining to do - it is cheesy mindless twaddle that can be very entertaining but never had it in it to have the impact of the new show. They say the definition of great art is you either love or hate it, and very little in-between. I think at its best nuBSG slots in nicely.

It may be Anti-trek but its Very pro-'Days of our Lives' and I have no interest in watching a guys soap opera -

That's not Scifi - its soap in....

SPACCCCCEEEEeeeeee

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I was addressing Babaganoosh's concern that it would be so much like Battlestar Galactica that it would loose its Trek identity.

And, RDM's comments aside, I'm still not convinced that this would not happen.

Erm, how can you set his comments aside?

Because I don't *believe* him. Not that he would outright lie, but the temptation (to nu-BSG-ize the show) would just be too great.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven".

Which are, IMHO, extremely overrated.

Also anyone who rates the original BSG over the new one really has some explaining to do

I don't know about *rating* it, as such, but I *like* the original much more than the new version. I don't think I should have to explain or defend my choice.

 

[jimbtnp2]

I was addressing Babaganoosh's concern that it would be so much like Battlestar Galactica that it would loose its Trek identity.

And, RDM's comments aside, I'm still not convinced that this would not happen.

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven". It all depends on whether you like the finished product.

Lets face it Starbuck, Apollo, Dee and Anders spent the third season acting like twats over their love quadrangle, and yes it did border on "soap". There is however a reason why people watch soaps, they offer a compressed sensationalised take on real life, a bit like hearing a years worth of office gossip on one show.

BSG should not be like this but if it is to portray relatinoships AT ALL, then the participants must act like idiots a lot of the time, I've lost count of the number of times I have seen friends in couples in massive row and wanted to knock their heads together, thats just life.

nuBSG is NOT intended to be the same in style as Star Trek, it is completely different in every conceivable way except they both feature a space ship. If RDM were to make a Trek show he would be required to make something completely different - a very good reason why he would never do it.

The entire reason Trek became formulaic was because it was not willing to break from its weekly formula. I'd have kept watching all seven seasons of Enterprise if it had lasted that long but it never broke new storytelling ground, or character ground for that matter.

BSG is the anti-trek, one of its central principles is the Galactica crew are not the best in the fleet like Kirk's crew. They are not exceptional, they have flaws, they frak a lot up - but in exceptional circumstances they do exceptional things. In this respect it has a lot in common with Joss Whedon's shows.

Also anyone who rates the original BSG over the new one really has some explaining to do - it is cheesy mindless twaddle that can be very entertaining but never had it in it to have the impact of the new show. They say the definition of great art is you either love or hate it, and very little in-between. I think at its best nuBSG slots in nicely.

But that's RDM's biggest problem - He's ALL style and No substance - I'd make it darker - i'd make it lighter - WHO CARES
Can you come up witha good story or at least attract the right talent who does? No - all he's worried about is the look not the meat
Hence his shows wiggle around and tend to be boring

 

[Sci]

I was addressing Babaganoosh's concern that it would be so much like Battlestar Galactica that it would loose its Trek identity.

And, RDM's comments aside, I'm still not convinced that this would not happen.

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven". It all depends on whether you like the finished product.

No. Just look at some of RDM's previous Trek work -- say, "In the Cards" or "Family" or "Data's Day" or "In Theory" or "The First Duty" or "Tapestry" or "Our Man Bashir" or "Looking for par'Mach in all the Wrong Places" or "Trials and Tribble-ations" or "You Are Cordially Invited" or "Take Me Out to the Holosuite." They're all realistic, but none are as dark as BSG, and none of the characters are as dysfunctional. Or, heck, check out other TV shows -- Doctor Who, say, or Veronica Mars, or The West Wing. It is entirely possible to do realistic drama without being dark and miserable, and it is entirely possible to do character-driven without doing soap opera.

Battlestar Galactica is certainly its own animal; it's based on certain fundamental premises in terms of characterization and mood. It's built around characters that are pretty screwed up who are trying to survive in an extreme situation (human race on the brink of extinction). To take Battlestar Galactica and say that its dramatic conceits are the definition of realistic and character-driven drama -- or to say that its nature is indicative of what all of the works of its creator must necessarily be like -- is flatly inaccurate.

The entire reason Trek became formulaic was because it was not willing to break from its weekly formula.

That's part of it, but I think it goes further; they weren't even willing to use the formula in a new way. They basically never wanted to allow the formula itself to grow and evolve; you can do formulaic writing and still have it work, if the formula is allowed to grow organically. That's why the current Doctor Who still works in spite of its formulaic nature -- the formula is allowed to gradually change as it goes along.

BSG is the anti-trek, one of its central principles is the Galactica crew are not the best in the fleet like Kirk's crew. They are not exceptional, they have flaws, they frak a lot up - but in exceptional circumstances they do exceptional things. In this respect it has a lot in common with Joss Whedon's shows.

I actually disagree. Whedon's work is all about discovering that people you think are screwups by nature are not and are actually amazing by nature. BSG is about people who are screwups by nature managing to do exception things in exceptional circumstances -- but they're still by nature screwed up.

 

[Michael]

Funny, for a moment I though I was in the BSG forum ...

 

[137th Gebirg]

This thread could fit in either one...

 

[USS KG5]

Thankk God for multi-quote, first off...

It may be Anti-trek but its Very pro-'Days of our Lives' and I have no interest in watching a guys soap opera -

That's not Scifi - its soap in....

SPACCCCCEEEEeeeeee

How can I respond to a reasoned argument like that?

Fortunately it gets better...

Which are, IMHO, extremely overrated.

It depends if you like them or not I guess - certainly the show is the opposite of the most classic style of Trek, and therefore unlikely to be to the taste of a lot of trek fans.

But that's RDM's biggest problem - He's ALL style and No substance - I'd make it darker - i'd make it lighter - WHO CARES
Can you come up witha good story or at least attract the right talent who does? No - all he's worried about is the look not the meat
Hence his shows wiggle around and tend to be boring

BSG has a heck of a lot of substance - just not necessarily in telling the big story, which it is not so interested in a lot of the time. It is more about the people living through the journey to find Earth than it is about an epic journey to find Earth - this is RDMs writing style.

No. Just look at some of RDM's previous Trek work -- say, "In the Cards" or "Family" or "Data's Day" or "In Theory" or "The First Duty" or "Tapestry" or "Our Man Bashir" or "Looking for par'Mach in all the Wrong Places" or "Trials and Tribble-ations" or "You Are Cordially Invited" or "Take Me Out to the Holosuite." They're all realistic, but none are as dark as BSG, and none of the characters are as dysfunctional. Or, heck, check out other TV shows -- Doctor Who, say, or Veronica Mars, or The West Wing. It is entirely possible to do realistic drama without being dark and miserable, and it is entirely possible to do character-driven without doing soap opera.

That assumes two conceits - one that BSG was "soap opera" which it never has been IMHO, and that nuBSG is always dark and miserable, it isn't.

I also never said that the only way to write realistic drama is to be dark and miserable, however I am saying this now.

It does not have to be dark and miserable ALL THE TIME, but again nuBSG is not dark and miserable all the time - the moments of triumph and joy and hope are given as much prominence as those of despair BUT the latter are bound to be more common when fleeing with a handful of survivors from genocide. To make the show more upbeat would betray its premise.

Battlestar Galactica is certainly its own animal; it's based on certain fundamental premises in terms of characterization and mood. It's built around characters that are pretty screwed up who are trying to survive in an extreme situation (human race on the brink of extinction). To take Battlestar Galactica and say that its dramatic conceits are the definition of realistic and character-driven drama -- or to say that its nature is indicative of what all of the works of its creator must necessarily be like -- is flatly inaccurate.

I guess it is a good thing I didn't say that then - what I said was that BSG's dramatic conceits are a part of what makes it an excellent piece of drama, and that they mostly are pretty realistic.

There are also ways of making a drama that is completely different and equally "realistic". Real life is a huge fantastic tapestry far more exciting than any TV show could be, and far more deep and broad than TV can really effectively show, don't you think?

That's part of it, but I think it goes further; they weren't even willing to use the formula in a new way. They basically never wanted to allow the formula itself to grow and evolve; you can do formulaic writing and still have it work, if the formula is allowed to grow organically. That's why the current Doctor Who still works in spite of its formulaic nature -- the formula is allowed to gradually change as it goes along.

Oh agreed totally.

I actually disagree. Whedon's work is all about discovering that people you think are screwups by nature are not and are actually amazing by nature. BSG is about people who are screwups by nature managing to do exception things in exceptional circumstances -- but they're still by nature screwed up.

Well I'd disagree your disagree, you are not wrong but I think part of being a happy human is realising that we are all amazing and we are all screw-ups, and we have to be happy with who we are. Like Buffy eventually realises in S6 she may have been ripped from Heaven but she has another chance at life with Dawn and her friends, one worth fighting for.

 

[Eric Cheung]

What's wrong with character specifics and minutae? That's something that outside of Kirk and Spock , I always thought TOS was lacking, and the other shows did better. We never learned anything about Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu or Chekov, and I thought that was a waste.

to start by definition its usually fluff - what or how does it add to the story telling?

This question is based on a flawed premise. It's the other way around. Story telling, or more accurately plot, services character development. It's the fluff that makes the characters more interesting.

A good obituary usually describes a person's traits. It is not a resume. But it can incorporate the accomplishments, and the little details of those stories, to make a good eulogy.

One doesn't watch Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm for the plot, but for the characters.

Likewise, the reason DS9 was more well liked by critics and fans than VOY was because they understood this. The two shows represent thedichotomy of character versus plot pretty well. On DS9 they usually hatched stories because they wanted to see how a particular character or set of characters would react to them, for example the perrenial torture-O'Brien episodes. Of course this extended to the ones involving warfare and geopolitical intrigue as well, but mostly to raise the stakes for the characters and to test them.

On VOY it seemed like they hatched the plot first. They decided what would be an interesting concept or thing to happen to the ship, then they'd pull in the characters to service the story. It had less impact because the characters were there to service the plot and in so doing, they weren't always well matched. But if you have the plot service the character, then the plot could be anything and it should work because it's being written based on the character's honest reaction to the situation.

Otherwise the characters just serve as interchangeble protagonists in what is basically an episode of Law & Order. It could almost be another show instead of Star Trek.

 

[USS KG5]

Actually that is a fair point - a lot of episodes of Voyager (and all modern trek to be fair) could be described as "Starfleet procedurals".

 

[STIntergalactic]

When I first saw this thread, I honestly thought it was about Robert Duncan McNeill.

 

[Kegek]

to start by definition its usually fluff - what or how does it add to the story telling?

This question is based on a flawed premise. It's the other way around. Story telling, or more accurately plot, services character development. It's the fluff that makes the characters more interesting.

You're both wrong.

And both right. Depending how you look at it.

That is, plot can indeed be less relevant than character development... and character development can be less relevant than plot. A series doesn't need any more character development than TOS had - it had enough for its leads to be likeable and have an interesting repartee, even if it wasn't going into Kirk's childhood dreams as an Iowan farmboy.

And on the other hand, a series could be entirely or mostly about its characters and their interactions, with plot being less important. While character development was stressed more in the later Treks, they never reached that level of distance from the plot.

What I'm saying is there are no set rules. Plot is not always important, nor is character, nor does one innately have priority over the other. Whatever works - and it can be any of the above - works. Plot need not always be at the service of character reactions nor should the characters always be stepping stones to a plot.

So then, the issue really is: Does RDM's approach work? Is it compelling and interesting way to spend an hour?

 

[DanCPA]

Because I don't *believe* him. Not that he would outright lie, but the temptation (to nu-BSG-ize the show) would just be too great.

And I doubt he would have been able to. We should remember that RDM, as great as nu-BSG may or may not be, would be under the reins of UPN if he were the "answer" on Voyager. He wouldn't be able to push the envelope quite so far because they would simply stop him.

As for giving him the next Trek series, I wouldn't mind if he was involved in its development process, but I would also like to see Ira in their... Shame Michael Piller can't be part of its development

 

[Eric Cheung]

So then, the issue really is: Does RDM's approach work? Is it compelling and interesting way to spend an hour?

Of course I think so. But I'll give you that for a show to be enjoyable one doesn't need mountains of backstory. A lot of people do like procedurals. But the characters do need to be believable, and I think they really do need to have some depth.

I think if the writers know what's going on with the characters then I don't even need to know that much about them. But as viewers I think we'd still know something was off if we knew the writers seriously didn't understand their own characters. If a series has a bunch of plot holes I think I'd be more willing to forgive it if the characters stayed true throughout than the other way around.

 

[grabmygoblin]

blasphemy thread. He'll smite you ya know.

Doubt Him not, Brothers and Sisters, for His rage knows no boundaries, yet be ever thankful, for His forgiveness is greater.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1807830&postcount=117

 

[jimbtnp2]

What's wrong with character specifics and minutae? That's something that outside of Kirk and Spock , I always thought TOS was lacking, and the other shows did better. We never learned anything about Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu or Chekov, and I thought that was a waste.

to start by definition its usually fluff - what or how does it add to the story telling?

This question is based on a flawed premise. It's the other way around. Story telling, or more accurately plot, services character development. It's the fluff that makes the characters more interesting.

A good obituary usually describes a person's traits. It is not a resume. But it can incorporate the accomplishments, and the little details of those stories, to make a good eulogy.

One doesn't watch Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm for the plot, but for the characters.

Likewise, the reason DS9 was more well liked by critics and fans than VOY was because they understood this. The two shows represent thedichotomy of character versus plot pretty well. On DS9 they usually hatched stories because they wanted to see how a particular character or set of characters would react to them, for example the perrenial torture-O'Brien episodes. Of course this extended to the ones involving warfare and geopolitical intrigue as well, but mostly to raise the stakes for the characters and to test them.

On VOY it seemed like they hatched the plot first. They decided what would be an interesting concept or thing to happen to the ship, then they'd pull in the characters to service the story. It had less impact because the characters were there to service the plot and in so doing, they weren't always well matched. But if you have the plot service the character, then the plot could be anything and it should work because it's being written based on the character's honest reaction to the situation.

Otherwise the characters just serve as interchangeble protagonists in what is basically an episode of Law & Order. It could almost be another show instead of Star Trek.

the term 'Character developement' is so ridiculously used its become cliche

NO ONE watches a show simply because of character developement - they watch it because the STORY is entertaining - and they enjoy the way their fav Characters relate the story

has any Seinfeld character developed in 9 years on TV - NO if they did people would stop watching - your example is flawed

we like seinfeld because George, Kramer, Jerry, Elaine - act exactly as we'd expected them to (which happens to be histerical)- that's the opposite of development -
if it stopped being funny people would stop watching the show regardless of the characters- proof being the failed attempts by the casts members to create their own shows


the idea that you surmise was the good of DS9 was in fact its flaw - lets see how obrien reacts to x or kira reacts to y - no one really gives a rats azz as how THEY react - people want to see an issue/conflict and a resolution delivered in a compelling way, period - i do agree that of course some characters are more interesting at relating the problem hence we like Kirk, Indiana Jones, Sigorney etc -

 

[Orac Zen]

Because I don't *believe* him. Not that he would outright lie, but the temptation (to nu-BSG-ize the show) would just be too great.

And I doubt he would have been able to. We should remember that RDM, as great as nu-BSG may or may not be, would be under the reins of UPN if he were the "answer" on Voyager. He wouldn't be able to push the envelope quite so far because they would simply stop him.

Bingo.

As I recall, it was Michael Piller who made it clear that UPN torpedoed pretty much anything that would have taken Voyager away from what they wanted it to be - namely, some sort of TNG clone, which would supposedly yield TNG-type ratings and thus make lots of money for them. That was the root cause of many of Voyager's (real and / or imagined) "flaws". The notion that Moore would have been somehow able to change this mindset is ridiculous.

I'm perfectly okay with Moore being out of Trek. The episodes of nBSG I saw did nothing for me, and his recent tendency to bitch about Trek - thus biting the hand that fed him for quite a few years - would suggest he doesn't want a lot to do with it any more, anyway.

 

[Eric Cheung]

the term 'Character developement' is so ridiculously used its become cliche

NO ONE watches a show simply because of character developement - they watch it because the STORY is entertaining - and they enjoy the way their fav Characters relate the story

has any Seinfeld character developed in 9 years on TV - NO if they did people would stop watching - your example is flawed

I didn't use the term development in relation to Seinfeld, only character. Even so, the example still flies. The jokes are funny because of the characters. The characters aren't funny just because of the jokes. The jokes are merely one layer of what makes it funny.

the idea that you surmise was the good of DS9 was in fact its flaw - lets see how obrien reacts to x or kira reacts to y - no one really gives a rats azz as how THEY react - people want to see an issue/conflict and a resolution delivered in a compelling way, period - i do agree that of course some characters are more interesting at relating the problem hence we like Kirk, Indiana Jones, Sigorney etc -

No. When an episode is about an issue more than the characters the end result is usually a preachy episode where the characters lecture the audience. Starting with a plot is what TNG and VOY did and it resulted in the criticism that pervades these boards of those two shows. That said, both shows did have their moments when they knew what to do with their characters, though TNG probably had more of them because it was growing and moving towards what DS9 would become at its best.

There's a book that illustrates the difference between DS9 and VOY's approach brilliantly: Star Trek: Action!

On DS9 they're working on how to kill off Jadzia so that it feels organic and not over-written, all of which is preface for the scene they're working on staging in which Sisko mourns Jadzia.

On VOY they have a cool idea for the fourth season finale and retroactively fit the characters into the plot.

I will concede that perhaps it's presumptuous of either of us to presume what everyone likes in their stories. Some people really do like procedurals. I'm just not one of them because more often than not the characters are more-or-less interchangeable. That said, even VOY and ENT had far more character development than most of those shows.