Letter to Moonves

[Dusty Ayres]

I want a return to the 24th century.

I find it horrifying that they once did come up with all those species, all those storylines and everything we had in TNG, DS9 and VOY and then they abandon it for a third-rate screwed-up retro remake movie.

Which you and everybody else destroyed and wanted gone due to your bitching and hatred of Berman & Braga

But what does "Moonshine" and his gang care about? They don't give a d**n about Star Trek, the only thing they care about are their wallets.

That much is true, but sadly,if they didn't, there would be no more Star Trek.

A series about the screwed-up "Abrams Universe" is of no interest at all to me.

Unfortunately, a series about the previous universe didn't work; that's why it's gone and the Abrams-verse is here.

Even worse is that the "relaunch" books about the 24th century s***s big time. There is nothing in them but character destruction.

Half of the characters weren't liked by most fans anyway, and those ones needed to have something happen to shake them up, or be killed off. Kind of like what Joss Whedon did on Buffy The Vampire Slayer and in Serenity.

So I guess I have to re-watch the DVD:s and tapes I have from the 24th century series. Again!

Your choice, not mine or anybody else's

And read the books I have from the same era, the books which were made when the series were on air. Again!

Same as above.

How I miss the glorious days when Star Trek was good and interesting!

If you all hadn't bitched like little babies about Berman & Braga and how 'they're making Star Trek into shit' maybe you wouldn't now have to deal with a new Star trek universe that you now hate. But now you do, so I suggest that you do as you said you're gonna do above or stop bitching.

 

[USS KG5]

I don't know what your definition of "premise" is - maybe BSG's premise was something simplistic, like escape the Cylons and find Earth - but Cavil was the character who impelled the action of the plot and therefore is key to the whole frakkin' thing.

Well "premise" is a pretty loaded word anyhow, but from Wikpedia: - "The premise of a film or screenplay is the fundamental concept that drives the plot". So I believe that the overall arc story of BSG is a result of the premise, not the premise itself. That said it will get silly if we debate semantics too far.

The premise is therefore "small group of human survivors escape genocide in last remaining battlestar and rag-tag fleet, search for mythical planet called Earth". The arc with Cavil results from that.

Now in the end of course Cavil's character drove everything that happened to an extent, and as you say drove the whole Cylon "plan". I find it hard to believe that, from a storytelling point of view it was Cavil who drove the plot, as much as he was the focal point of an inevitable result of the premise, he was a frak up, with serious psychological issues and an Oedipus complex...

Cavil turned out to be the most important character in the story. And yeah, he was shoehorned in long after the story began, which is what caused the clumsiness of the story - writers really shouldn't start a story without taking into consideration their most important character, even if they don't plan to introduce him till later.

Well that is a bit harsh. The only show I can think of that had it all figured from day one was B5, and even then a lot changed during the run. You could even argue that when Cavil was actually written in in LDYB that he was not intended to have the huge role he later did in S4.

That said I love BSG and I love Cavil as a character. There is something about a machine who rebels against humans because he hates how "human" he is that is very appealing to me. That said it is probably borderline a bit too smugly clever for its own good.

Any premise - time travel, spaceships manned by Tholians, the Federation falling or having a civil war, even the dreaded Starfleet Academy - could be terrific if you get the frakkin basics right.

Yes quite - though this also raises the issue I've seen you raise in other threads before. Go too far from the established Trek premise and is it Star Trek any more?

 

[Lynx]

I want a return to the 24th century.

I find it horrifying that they once did come up with all those species, all those storylines and everything we had in TNG, DS9 and VOY and then they abandon it for a third-rate screwed-up retro remake movie.

Which you and everybody else destroyed and wanted gone due to your bitching and hatred of Berman & Braga

But what does "Moonshine" and his gang care about? They don't give a d**n about Star Trek, the only thing they care about are their wallets.

That much is true, but sadly,if they didn't, there would be no more Star Trek.



Unfortunately, a series about the previous universe didn't work; that's why it's gone and the Abrams-verse is here.



Half of the characters weren't liked by most fans anyway, and those ones needed to have something happen to shake them up, or be killed off. Kind of like what Joss Whedon did on Buffy The Vampire Slayer and in Serenity.



Your choice, not mine or anybody else's

And read the books I have from the same era, the books which were made when the series were on air. Again!

Same as above.

How I miss the glorious days when Star Trek was good and interesting!

If you all hadn't bitched like little babies about Berman & Braga and how 'they're making Star Trek into shit' maybe you wouldn't now have to deal with a new Star trek universe that you now hate. But now you do, so I suggest that you do as you said you're gonna do above or stop bitching.

Well....

First of all, Berman and Braga didn't do a good job in the later half of the time when they were in charge. The criticizm against them was justified.

Of course they want to make money but sometimes their greed is ridiculous. Don't they realize that what most of the Star Trek fans want is good stories and continuity, not further screwing-up of everything.

One series about the previous universe ("Enterprise") didn't work because it was a retro series full of continuity errors and with bland characters. The 24th century series were successes (TNG and DS9) and acceptable (VOY) when it came to popularity and ratings.

As for the characters, most of them were and are still liked by the fans and ar definitely more popular than the no-nos who has replaced them in the books and the Kirk, Spock and other TOS clones in the screwed-up universe.

Killing off classic characters or destroying them are just a sign of lack of will, skill and inspiration. Besides that, series like Buffy and Serenity can't be compared to Star Trek when it comes to good characters and good storytelling.

And yes, I do prefer to re-watch "Caretaker" for the umpteenth time (which I actually did yesterday) and re-read "The Black Shore" for the umpteenth time (which I probably will during this year) than to read depressive stuff like "Full Circle" and "Destiny" or watch a a series about the screwed-up Abrams universe (didn't Abrams notice that Vulcan was never destroyed in the real Star Trek universe? Was it Jar-Jar Binks who dabbled with the timeline?).

Besides that, if I get the time, I can always come up with an own written story. I've made three so far and I enjoy reading them much more than I would enjoy reading "Full Circle".

But right now I'm a very dissatisfied fan and I will continue to complain until some TV or movie company or Pocket Books comes up with something 24th century related which I can find acceptable.

 

[USS KG5]

First of all, Berman and Braga didn't do a good job in the later half of the time when they were in charge. The criticizm against them was justified.

Well criticism certainly was - the mania on this board less so.

To be fair though they really did just do as they were told. They did take risks, like the Xindi arc in ENT, but they simply were not allowed to on VGR, it was the "cash cow".

Of course they want to make money but sometimes their greed is ridiculous. Don't they realize that what most of the Star Trek fans want is good stories and continuity, not further screwing-up of everything.

All excessive greed is ridiculous, but Star Trek is made in America, greed is good...well it isn't but that's capitalism for you.

One series about the previous universe ("Enterprise") didn't work because it was a retro series full of continuity errors and with bland characters. The 24th century series were successes (TNG and DS9) and acceptable (VOY) when it came to popularity and ratings.

ENT started working fine towards the end of its run. It was not THAT bad at the beginning. The problem was that the same team had been writing trek for so long they genuinely thought "shuttle crash story" and so on were what "trek" was - rather than a simple show about travelling through space exploring where you could tell any mainstream sci-fi story.

As for the characters, most of them were and are still liked by the fans and ar definitely more popular than the no-nos who has replaced them in the books and the Kirk, Spock and other TOS clones in the screwed-up universe.

The new trek movie actually made money and had genuine critical acclaim. I am as positive about things like that as anyone but I was still amazed what a good and profitable film it came out as.

I don't understand where the whole continuity fuss comes from, its just a TV show.

Killing off classic characters or destroying them are just a sign of lack of will, skill and inspiration. Besides that, series like Buffy and Serenity can't be compared to Star Trek when it comes to good characters and good storytelling.

Yeah, for the seven years it ran Buffy was usually much better.

(didn't Abrams notice that Vulcan was never destroyed in the real Star Trek universe? Was it Jar-Jar Binks who dabbled with the timeline?).

Yes, that is EXACTLY why he destroyed it in the film, to show that this was now a different universe and handily drop all the continuity in one go. They then chat about it on the ship. I thought it was pretty clever.

Besides that, if I get the time, I can always come up with an own written story. I've made three so far and I enjoy reading them much more than I would enjoy reading "Full Circle".

Good for you.

 

[Dukhat]

But right now I'm a very dissatisfied fan and I will continue to complain until some TV or movie company or Pocket Books comes up with something 24th century related which I can find acceptable.

Well, you'll be very dissatisfied for a very long time, because they're not going to cater to one ornery fan on some bulletin board. The chances of 24th century Trek ever returning to the movies or TV is practically zero.

 

[Lynx]

First of all, Berman and Braga didn't do a good job in the later half of the time when they were in charge. The criticizm against them was justified.

Well criticism certainly was - the mania on this board less so.

To be fair though they really did just do as they were told. They did take risks, like the Xindi arc in ENT, but they simply were not allowed to on VGR, it was the "cash cow".

Of course they want to make money but sometimes their greed is ridiculous. Don't they realize that what most of the Star Trek fans want is good stories and continuity, not further screwing-up of everything.

All excessive greed is ridiculous, but Star Trek is made in America, greed is good...well it isn't but that's capitalism for you.



ENT started working fine towards the end of its run. It was not THAT bad at the beginning. The problem was that the same team had been writing trek for so long they genuinely thought "shuttle crash story" and so on were what "trek" was - rather than a simple show about travelling through space exploring where you could tell any mainstream sci-fi story.



The new trek movie actually made money and had genuine critical acclaim. I am as positive about things like that as anyone but I was still amazed what a good and profitable film it came out as.

I don't understand where the whole continuity fuss comes from, its just a TV show.



Yeah, for the seven years it ran Buffy was usually much better.

(didn't Abrams notice that Vulcan was never destroyed in the real Star Trek universe? Was it Jar-Jar Binks who dabbled with the timeline?).

Yes, that is EXACTLY why he destroyed it in the film, to show that this was now a different universe and handily drop all the continuity in one go. They then chat about it on the ship. I thought it was pretty clever.

Besides that, if I get the time, I can always come up with an own written story. I've made three so far and I enjoy reading them much more than I would enjoy reading "Full Circle".

Good for you.

Voyager was supposed to be the "cash cow" but wasn't because of the erratic and sometimes uninspired writing. Unfortunately, some of their decisions actually insulted different groups of fans too.

Here I must add that I didn't write a single word of criticizm against Berman, Braga and Taylor until they dumped Kes in Voyager's season 4 and I found out how and why they did it and I didn't join the "hate club" until after "Fury" was aired.

I won't deny that Berman and his people made a lot of good things in the beginning but they should have left Voyager to other writers because they had started to lose their inspiration at that time.

As for the new movie, it was OK as an on-off thing about young Kirk, young Spock and so. But to build the future of Trek on the universe created in that movie, no, that's not a good idea and I didn't like the way they screwed up things by destroying Vulcan and all that.

As for Buffy, it was entertaining in a way but very limited, I mean it was basically the same story over and over again: Monster or vampire show up in the same old school basement again. Can't be compared to Star Trek with it's multitude of species, plots and characters.

And yes, I do have my DVD:s, tapes, books and I might get the time to come up with a new story now and then as well but it could be nice to watch a new 24th century Trek episode or read a good book from the same era without having to write the story myself.

When it comes to watchin, I guess I have to settle wityh the old stuff plus Stargate which isn't that bad. Not comparable to Trek but watchable.

Besides that, I have to give Moonves and his people credit for NCIS. That series is good!

Dukhat wrote:

Well, you'll be very dissatisfied for a very long time, because they're not going to cater to one ornery fan on some bulletin board. The chances of 24th century Trek ever returning to the movies or TV is practically zero.

There are many of us who want the 24th century back.

Not to mention what a waste it is to leave behind that era with all the possibilities for good stories to be made. What a waste!

 

[USS KG5]

Voyager was supposed to be the "cash cow" but wasn't because of the erratic and sometimes uninspired writing. Unfortunately, some of their decisions actually insulted different groups of fans too.

Well that is really the fans problem isn't it. Dude I have been here long enough not to be in your face about the Kes thing, but heck Jennifer Lien could do better elsewhere. She was good in "American History X" which is better written than all of Voyager combined.

I won't deny that Berman and his people made a lot of good things in the beginning but they should have left Voyager to other writers because they had started to lose their inspiration at that time.

Sadly the only real candidates to take over were Moore (who left) and Behr (who was busy with DS9).

As for the new movie....

I'm cool that you didn't like it. Personally I thought it was almost as good as Wrath Of Khan.

As for Buffy, it was entertaining in a way but very limited, I mean it was basically the same story over and over again: Monster or vampire show up in the same old school basement again. Can't be compared to Star Trek with it's multitude of species, plots and characters.

I'm sorry but that is a total misrepresentation of Buffy as a show. By all means make a subjective judgement and prefer trek, but as a show about human beings Buffy achieved a heck of a lot more than Trek did post-TNG. Even DS9 rarely got the human equation that right.

 

[Lynx]

^^
The movie was actually OK when it came to entertainment and action and the actors were OK too. My problem with the movie is that it has spawned this new universe which I'm not too fond of and that future Trek will be based on that new universe.

 

[Bruno]

Not to mention what a waste it is to leave behind that era with all the possibilities for good stories to be made. What a waste!

Just as an example of the fact that there are always differences of opinion where things like tv are concerned, I would like to say that my feelings about 24th Century Trek pretty much mirror how you feel about NuTrek.

As a fan from the early 70's, I have always felt that the stories about the bland, dull 24th C (my opinion only) were a waste of resources that could have been better spent exploring Kirl's era.

But the opinions of one fan (me, in this case) don't pay the bills...

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Not to mention what a waste it is to leave behind that era with all the possibilities for good stories to be made. What a waste!

Just as an example of the fact that there are always differences of opinion where things like tv are concerned, I would like to say that my feelings about 24th Century Trek pretty much mirror how you feel about NuTrek.

As a fan from the early 70's, I have always felt that the stories about the bland, dull 24th C (my opinion only) were a waste of resources that could have been better spent exploring Kirl's era.

But the opinions of one fan (me, in this case) don't pay the bills...

Just goes to show one how other people thought about the 24th Century-not very well.

My younger brother was like that; he hated TNG, DS9 & VOY, and so did/does an acquaintance of mine that I see at local conventions in Toronto (he hated the new movie, though). And from what I saw, Dr. Laura Schlesinger also hated the 24th Century epoch, and wanted it gone (it was anathema to her neocon, pro-family beliefs,) as well as uber-Trekfan Ben Stiller (who blasted it at the 25th anniversary celebrations.) Most people tolerated the 24th Century, but I doubt they liked it, and I'll bet that they were waiting for it to fail and for the 23rd to come back in all it's glory-and so, now it has.

Mind you, I did love the 24th century epoch of Star Trek, did not blame Berman & Braga for it's death, and am glad to see it continue on into the 25th Century as Star Trek Online.

 

[Lynx]

^^
So "other people" don't like the 24th century? Strange statement considering the popularity of TNG which still stands and the loyal fandom for DS9 and Voyager as well.

The 23rd century will never come back in its full glory. It had its time with TOS and actors like Shatner and Nimoy. What we'll get is just another example of a watered-down remake with not-so-good actors as the original ones and where the only stunt from those in charge is to screw up established Trek history.

As for Berman and his people, they did actually abandon the 24th century by coming up with retro "Enterprise" ( a move comparable to if the record companies should abandon the technology of today and go back to 78 rpm records and mono recording).

25th century? Not when there is so much undone in the 24th century.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

25th century? Not when there is so much undone in the 24th century.

Except that nobody wants to play around in it or with it anymore.

 

[Lynx]

^^
"Nobody" is an exaggeration.

There are many Trek fans who want a return to the 24th century.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

^^
"Nobody" is an exaggeration.

There are many Trek fans who want a return to the 24th century.

At this point, just you and maybe a few others over the 'Net. And who would star in any movie/TV movie/big-screen movie? The Next Gen cast are (mostly) retired or don't want to do it anymore (Stewart), the DS9 cast are off to doing other things, Berman & Braga are gone, plus most of the costumes and sets have been dismantled and sold! (Which tells you how much/what Paramount/CBS thinks of the 24th Century epoch.)

So then, a new set of characters will have to be created. But who will want to write them? And where will the costumes and sets for any new movie/TV show come from (remember, they've been all sold off or dismantled)?

The current focus is on the 23rd Century epoch, and that is as it will be for a while. And the OP's concept-even if he managed to dot his I's and cross his T's-would be rejected before it even got in the door.

 

[Lynx]

^^
So instead of creativity we got watered-down remakes of an once good show and the Jar-Jar Universe too.

Shows how much the big company cares about Star Trek and their lack of will, skill, imagination and contact with the fanbase.

Believe me, there are many fans who would prefer a return to the 24th century instead of the Jar-Jar Universe and watered-down remakes.

 

[USS KG5]

instead of the Jar-Jar Universe...

Where was the comic relief major character puppet thing in STXI? I don't remember one.

 

[Lynx]

^^
The destruction of Vulcan.

 

[Dukhat]

^^
The destruction of Vulcan.

Oh please. I understand the points you've made, but this is just being silly.

 

[USS KG5]

^^
The destruction of Vulcan.

As Dukhat said now you are just being silly.

The destruction of Vulcan was there precisely to show this was a different universe. Basically JJ was saying "OK, this is my playground now" so he can tell what stories he wants to tell.

Telling someone like JJ Abrams that you HAVE to use "established continuity" to sate the obsessive 1% of the fanbase who know it like scripture is like telling your new boss you are doing something obviously stupid because "you've always done it".

Anoher point - upset by the destruction of Vulcan? GOOD! So was I! I've watched Vulcans in Trek since I was a kid, I've actually learnt to care about Vulcans, the film has had an effect! Compare this to Generations where we are asked to care about 234 million people we have never met, never seen, never will see.

This is good film-making by someone who knows how to make FILMS just as well as TV shows. He knows he could not do "Lost, In Space" (get it) so he makes a fun, exciting, emotional rollercoaster of a movie with the great TOS characters brought up-to-date for a modern audience.

Now I understand that you want the 24th century with all its well-developed aliens and politics and classes of starship and even characters back, I do get your point, but do you REALLY think that would be a SENSIBLE course of action for someone running a mass-market franchise?

 

[Lynx]

USS KG5 wrote:

The destruction of Vulcan was there precisely to show this was a different universe. Basically JJ was saying "OK, this is my playground now" so he can tell what stories he wants to tell.

So if I was in charge, I could portray Kirk as a drunken fool, kill him off at the end of a movie or an episode and let Jar-Jar Binks or Luke Skywalker appear from nowhere to take over the Enterprise and then expect everyone to praise my "creative geniality"?

This is good film-making by someone who knows how to make FILMS just as well as TV shows. He knows he could not do "Lost, In Space" (get it) so he makes a fun, exciting, emotional rollercoaster of a movie with the great TOS characters brought up-to-date for a modern audience.

As I've written before, the movie is OK as an on-off action movie, except for the destruction of Vulcan but I don't want the future of Star Trek to be built on the alternate universe created in that movie, not when we got the much better original Star Trek universe to create plenty of good stories in. Not to mention that it's impossible to re-create a masterpiece like TOS.

Now I understand that you want the 24th century with all its well-developed aliens and politics and classes of starship and even characters back, I do get your point, but do you REALLY think that would be a SENSIBLE course of action for someone running a mass-market franchise?

yes, that would be a much better and much more logical course of action than to create an alternate universe and screw up what's already has been established.