Why do they still let Braga do TV shows?

[Admiral2]

^Regardless, I think it's silly to attempt to suggest that commercial success and quality go hand in hand. Transformers movies, anyone?

Yeah, I agree. It's a huge myth. It's like the old saying "I may not know anything about art, but I know what I like." I happen to really really really like and enjoy Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's still a s*it movie. While the number of quality TV shows and movies produced over the years that were ignored by the general public numbers in the thousands by this time.

And the one comeback I always throw at people who believe ratings = quality: if that's the case then you must agree with 100% assurance and belief that "Firefly" was an awful, terrible, unwatchable show. Because its ratings were crap and it was cancelled. And the ratings are an indicator of a show's quality (oh and I won't even mention - no I'll mention - that Serenity didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Therefore it was a crap movie, right?) If people to agree to that edict, then I'll consider withdrawing my belief that ratings = quality is a myth. Of course they won't (and I could pick other shows - but Firefly is the best example because everyone says how fantastic it is, yet no one watched it, so extend the logic further and ...)

Point of order.

I'd be more than happy to testify I thought Firefly was shit, and I knew nothing about its ratings when I first tried to watch it.

In this case, ratings=quality seems to be an accurate assessment. Everybody who claims to love it should have bought the ratings boxes from all the people who didn't.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think it works that way,

 

[xortex]

Turning artistic quality into money and sustainable ratings is always very difficult. But that is what success is. Serling did it. Braga is too detached because he went out so far on Enterprise with no help and wasn't able to get completely back and is stuck in his own reality. You can see it in his eyes - the million mile stare inward.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

No one thinks that quality is reliably associated with popularity. However, the oft-raised fannish objection that "failure demonstrates no inadequacy in something I like, because most people like dumb stuff" is thoughtless, defensive bullshit.

No, but there is such a thing as being a critical success but a commercial failure. Shows like Firefly are a great example. The show was highly praised by critics and fans when it was on the air. It wasn't as if only dorks on the Internet were praising the show.

 

[stj]

High ratings means the show does well something lots of people like. Lots of people like to daydream about becoming stars, and American Idol does the daydream well and lots of people become fans of vicarious success.

Successful programs always do something well, if only cast a single charismatic actor in an intriguing role. (Intriguing is not a synonym for profound. Nor shallow.) Unsuccessful programs may never have gotten many people to tune in.

The syndication market did in fact change some, but even more to the point, neither Voyager nor Enterprise were syndicated programs. They were UPN programs and appear to have have a smaller broadcast range than syndicated programs. But I say that as someone who never had a chance to watch Voyager in primetime.

 

[Dick_Valentine]

The general audience prefers X-Factor, Dancing With The Stars, Strictly Come Dancing and the like to most quality dramas on tv. It's got nothing to do with quality.

Nonsense. The "general public" likes all kinds of things, some of which you'd approve of and some you don't. Dragging out the old "we know more about quality than Joe Sixpack and that's why we like what we like" line doesn't wash.

It's funny that the examples you select all have to do with people competing and demonstrating actual talents and skills - some of them well, and some quite badly - as opposed to being fantasy stories that take place in simplified settings featuring narrowly idealized characters. Skiffy fans prefer the latter? Who'da thunk?

Hmmm, I'm concerned by the fact you think Xfactor et al demonstrate people showing reasonable talent when what I've seen of it is people crying and being insulted because they can't warble along to someone else's song in the name of rating and the producers favoured act is nothing to do with vocal talent, more image and marketability and will get electronic assistance to their singing voice to assist in this fact.

Admittedly this is based on the UK versions of these shows so I do apologise if it is somehow different over there but these kinds of reality shows are doing way more damage to the music industry as people are sold on the fact that musical creativity is second to marketability and looking good than Brannon Braga did to Trek, and I hope that comes across as harsh as I mean it to sound!

The fact you used that as an example completely blew a whole in your arguments, sorry.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Rest assured that American reality TV is just as moronic as any in the world.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hmmm, I'm concerned by the fact you think Xfactor et al demonstrate people showing reasonable talent...

Why? If you think otherwise, you're mistaken.

 

[Frontier]

Hollywood isn't about talent, it's about who you know. Clearly, he either had dirt on the right people, or provides the right people with sexual and/or drug favors.

:P

 

[Mach5]

Rest assured that American reality TV is just as moronic as any in the world.

Then I take it you're never seen Croatian Big Brother?

Oh God, how I envy you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hollywood isn't about talent, it's about who you know.

No.

Knowing people helps about as much as it does in most businesses.

 

[FPAlpha]

^Yeah, I don't think lennier1 was watching the same show we were... DS9 was pretty darned smart.

becuase we were young and stupid.

We wouldn't fall for that now.

We cheered on Sisko when he laid false evidence about weapons of massdestruction held by the enemy forcing undecided allies to pick up a sword...

We cheered on Sisko, but not President bush when he did exactly the same thing.

that doesn't really seem fair?

I don't think you got "In the Pale Moonlight" at all.. it was an episode about a person watching his people die in droves against a superior enemy and who comes up with a plan to lure in a neutral faction he knows will be attacked sooner or later but by that time it will all be over already.

It torments Sisko for having to betray all his principles and convictions and it is a decision he will have to live with the rest of his life but the true question of the episode is.. would you have done the same? When push comes to shove in such an extreme measure who can stand up to the pressure and stay true to his morals even if that means everybody else suffers.

President Bush didn't do anything remotely the same nor was it even the same urgency but that's a totally different topic more suited to TNZ, PMs or some ethics/politics board somewhere on the net so i will not comment on that.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Correct. ITPM was a superb piece of thought-provoking writing and one which pre-dated the 'War on Terror' by some years and also pre-dated the sort of moral dilemna which shows like 24 regularly dealt with.

Ironically, ENT's attempts to mirror then-topical affairs - 9/11 and the various wars in response to it - in season 3 were nowhere near as effective.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"In The Pale Moonlight" has good points, but it cops out with regard to the "compromise of principles in war" - the worst that has to be done is done by someone else, someone we already know to be morally compromised (and certainly not a member of the regular cast!) then presented to Sisko as a fait accompli. The Hero is rescued from having to make a decision about the real dirty work. Like much of DS9, the episode pretended to be tough-minded, but was so only by the standards of Star Trek - which is to say, thematically and in terms of content lagging far behind other popular entertainment of the 1990s.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Hollywood isn't about talent, it's about who you know.

No.

Knowing people helps about as much as it does in most businesses.

Which is quite a bit, as far as I have seen.

But the idea that the most popular folks in Hollywood (actors, directors, writers, producers, etc.) are primarily there because of who they know and not because they have sought-after talents/skills is, I agree, quite silly. Very, very few people in this world can get by solely on their ability to charm others, or because they had the right daddy.

"In The Pale Moonlight" has good points, but it cops out with regard to the "compromise of principles in war" - the worst that has to be done is done by someone else, someone we already know to be morally compromised (and certainly not a member of the regular cast!) then presented to Sisko as a fait accompli. The Hero is rescued from having to make a decision about the real dirty work. Like much of DS9, the episode pretended to be tough-minded, but was so only by the standards of Star Trek - which is to say, thematically and in terms of content lagging far behind other popular entertainment of the 1990s.

Indeed. Sisko actually did more overtly bad things than this--like poisoning a planet's atmosphere to get to Eddington. Even then, though, his actions were blunted by lines indicating no one would die from this, as they had ample time to evacuate. Fancy that 24th century mustard gas that magically knows not to immediately kill anyone.

ITPM would've had more impact had Sisko had to kill Vreenak himself, or even simply ask Garak to do it. But since he didn't, and the worst he had to do was pass off a forgery, he comes out only slightly morally gray, and I'd argue no more gray than he'd ever been in the past.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I would probably have to agree with Legion on that. But still, it did reflect a turnaround from the squeaky-clean days of Picard or Kirk that was quite shocking at the time.

One might also consider that the idea of getting someone else to do one's dirty work and reaping the benefit or reward of it, whilst keeping one's own hands clean was somewhat prescient; extraordinary rendition and the outsourcing of torture, anyone?!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hollywood isn't about talent, it's about who you know.

No.

Knowing people helps about as much as it does in most businesses.

Which is quite a bit, as far as I have seen.

People skills and networking are usually considerations in the work place, but I doubt that many people in these forums will aver that they've achieved whatever they have mainly by kissing ass.

Indeed. Sisko actually did more overtly bad things than this--like poisoning a planet's atmosphere to get to Eddington. Even then, though, his actions were blunted by lines indicating no one would die from this, as they had ample time to evacuate. Fancy that 24th century mustard gas that magically knows not to immediately kill anyone.

Exactly. This is another good example of how DS9 fed trekkies a little frisson of edginess while continuing to color inside the lines for the most part. Star Trek fans who were fascinated by and emotionally involved with the Franchise ate this stuff up - but the majority of those television viewers who had watched TNG didn't buy into it and drifted away over time.

The writing on DS9 was pretty good for Star Trek, but usually in the service of nothing really any more challenging - uhm, war is bad, m'kay? - than TNG or Voyager. The most novel and interesting things they did were when they broke format a bit - "Far Beyond The Stars" being the best example. But then, Trek has usually delivered really memorable stories when the writers went outside the formula - "City On The Edge Of Forever" is one of the most unusual TOS episodes.

 

[Tom]

Hollywood isn't about talent, it's about who you know.

No.

Knowing people helps about as much as it does in most businesses.

Yup, who you know gets you in the door more often than not, (don't I know ) but if you dont have the right, or expected amount of talent it does not matter. Studios have to keep towards certain profesional standards and whether your in a union (SAG,WGA, teamsters etc..) or not, you still need talent to back it up or the door will hit you on the way out.

BTW, speaking of Braga, anyone catch Prophets of Science Fiction on the Science channel, Braga was a commentator on a couple of them.

 

[Sindatur]

Hmmm...Regarding the ITPM discussion. Sisko brought Garak into it. I fail to see how that leaves his hands clean morally and ethically. Sure, on paper he looks clean, but, morally and ethically, he turned the murdering psychopath loose for his own ends, Sisko is every bit as morally and ethically guilty as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

Garak even points out to Sisko that he needs to get off his high horse and admit he didn't involve Garak simply to achieve the forgery, but, because he knew Garak would, in the end, go to any lengths and do what needed to be done.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...Sisko is every bit as morally and ethically guilty as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

Except that he's not - he gets to be all shocked and outraged at an assassination that he gets to insist that he wouldn't have condoned, and he gets to go on being the star of the show.

This impresses trekkies, and no one much else, as "dark" - but it's a cheat and a cop-out. I'd say that the producers chickened out except that I doubt that anyone in a decision-making capacity ever really thought they could let Sisko plan an assassination so it's not as if they probably backed off at the last minute.