Bjo Trimble's comments on DS9
- Thread starter DS9forever
- Start date
^ After how that series went down the crapper after Robert Wolfe left I'd love to forget it.
I really wonder what Roddenberry would've objected to for DS9, given the fact that, he had basically given the show to Piller and Berman, and the characters of DS9 were not his creation. That said, he might've had a say for the political situations on Trek further on.
But I'm sure he would've loved the "Past Tense" two-parter. Because like the best of Trek, it showed optimism while projecting the worst past-for-Trek, future-for-us, as a backdrop for adressing issues. Not sure if he'd have liked "In the Pale Moonlight", though...
But I'm sure he would've loved the "Past Tense" two-parter. Because like the best of Trek, it showed optimism while projecting the worst past-for-Trek, future-for-us, as a backdrop for adressing issues. Not sure if he'd have liked "In the Pale Moonlight", though...
Can't we? Please?
After RHW left, that show really sucked. I used to watch it with the sound turned off since the only decent thing about it was Keith Hamilton Cobb's hotness.
I have to admit, in retrospect even RHW's run on Andromeda wasn't all that great. It was the show at its best, and its best was substandard Star Trek. Sure, it was trying harder to be an interesting show with interrelated arcs and some thematic material (I always loved the three-way prism of viewpoints between Dylan, Bem and Tyr), but weighed down with frequently turgid writing, performances, and McCauley's dreadful scoring, it was just above mediocre most of the time.
Anyway, there's a distinct difference between Earth: Final Conflict, and Andromeda. The former, if memory serves, was actually based on a pilot script that Gene Roddenberry had written. The latter, a handful of ideas - most from Genesis II, a filmed but aborted project - and then a bunch of stuff RHW made up. So when talking about Gene's approach to entertainment Earth: Final Conflict is a fair example (at least with S1's premise); Andromeda isn't.
Anyway, there's a distinct difference between Earth: Final Conflict, and Andromeda. The former, if memory serves, was actually based on a pilot script that Gene Roddenberry had written. The latter, a handful of ideas - most from Genesis II, a filmed but aborted project - and then a bunch of stuff RHW made up. So when talking about Gene's approach to entertainment Earth: Final Conflict is a fair example (at least with S1's premise); Andromeda isn't.
Wouldn't the more important distinction be that those two shows don't take place in the Roddenberry Trek universe? Where it seemed that he had hoped mankind would do all it could to avoid all out war against an enemy in said universe, unlike the other shows which played by obviously different rules regarding humanity?
I think Roddenberry would have approved of DS9. Evidence:
"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!" -- James Kirk, A Taste Of Armageddon.
"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!" -- James Kirk, A Taste Of Armageddon.
^^^
I'd say that quote proves the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.
That humanity at this point, according to Roddenberry, does NOT want to kill and fight and be at war with anyone.
It's a part of us, yes. But something we can work past. Hence, "the instinct can be fought."
I'd say that quote proves the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.
That humanity at this point, according to Roddenberry, does NOT want to kill and fight and be at war with anyone.
It's a part of us, yes. But something we can work past. Hence, "the instinct can be fought."
Not that it directly evidences one way or another, but I like the spirit of Roddenberry's comment that future Star Treks would do things better than previous series. Out of the series that followed TNG, I think DS9 most approaches that threshold of surpassing or doing something beyond TNG/TOS, in a successful manner.
Most of the time Kirk destroyed religions they were trying to sestroy his ship though. The Apple, Who Mourns For Adonis, Landru, etc
I think Roddenberry would have liked DS9. The humans on the show still embody the ideal that he had, and in the long run, the show is about preserving the human condition when it is challenged from without and within. Roddenberry likely would have loved that it was so well written and acted and that it showed the potential of his universe so thoroughly. It's unlikely that he'd feel the same way about Voyager. Just IMHO.
^ After how that series went down the crapper after Robert Wolfe left I'd love to forget it.
Me to!
I don't know much about Bjo, but that's a strange statement. Roddenberry would have had a war in a Trek show because war is entertaining? In DS9 I don't think the war was there for cheap thrills, or ratings, I think it was there for dramatic reasons. War is depressing, and the ratings may have suffered because they went that way, though I'm glad they did.
Yeah right, the DS9 writers didn't want to entertain their viewers.
Similar threads
