Damn you, Berman & Braga!

[Saquist]

You are quoting me out of context as I was referring to the television productions, not the movies.

Just addressing the other posters through your quote.

But on your points...there was pressure from the studio with Generations. They had a laundry list of things they wanted done in the film. With First Contact, the production team had a much freer hand on doing what they wanted to do. This is according to Moore and Braga's audio commentary for Generations and First Contact.

And of course the story came from Berman and written by his hand-picked writers. Why wouldn't it be? I don't know what point you were trying to make by posting part of what Shatner was saying.

Yet, they don't dictate the story, they dictate changes in the story. And with out knowing what the original components are it hardly does any good criticizing the studio. In every movie we see that the story is Berman's brain child. He dictates the story and the studio critics and orders changes. The studio isn't liable for the mediocrity they get from Berman in the first place, they (from what I've seen) only edit from the oddity to something respectable.

The studio interfered with again with Insurrection by forcing the production team to make it lighter in tone after the dark-ish First Contact. Initial drafts of INS had a very different tone.

That's not what I read.
I read that was a dictate of the Writer that they wanted for First Contact but said it was TOO Dark and the only way he'd do the next film was to go back to Roddenberries lighter vision. That's on MA.

By the time of Nemesis, the studio didn't seem to care anymore and saddled them with a director-for-hire with seeminly no personal vision for the film or interest in Trek. Granted, that doesn't excuse the laziness of the writing with Berman was a part of.

I did not hear that they had Saddled Baird on the crew.

That's just the studio interference. Whether the films are good or not is, of course, another matter.

But it's their job to interfere. That's their investment.

I don't understand what your point is here. B&M comment in their commentary that they felt it necessary, for a feature film with a wider audience, to have a direct antagonist for our heroes to interact with.

First Contact screwed up the Borg continuity as a faceless swarm. The stupidity of a Borg Queen was their thinking not the studios. You see everytime the MISS step has been the writers...Yet time and time again. I hear..."it was the studios interferences" as though if they had been allowed to do whatever they wanted the film would have been ground breaking? That seems like a massive leap of faith.

We will never know. Whether it would have been good or not is not the issue. Someone above was complaining how B&B just did the same old stuff again and again. Their initial idea for Enterprise was radically different from what came before.

Well if you don't know how can you possibily criticize the producers call. I mean "I don't know" generally means you don't have enough information. Is this just a gutt feeling?

But they were told "No! Stick with what works. Don't take risks!" The network also told them to include things like the transporter and other familiar Trek staples when B&B were purposefully going to leave them out. They also wanted more "future aspects" in the show (leading to the creation of the temporal cold war), because the 22nd century wasn't "future enough". The network was also the ones to force the words "Star Trek" into the title during season 3.

Well all that should give you a big clue as to whether Enterprise should have existed at all. It does for me. Sometimes compromise is a bad thing. These things do have to be negoiated.

But I haven't heard that it was the studio that forced them to make a prequel. Don't you think that if you were the creator of this new series that if you got this kind of dictation from the studio that perhaps you'd go in another direction?

I mean it's your idea. If you can't fulfill the realism you need to pull off your story because of the network would you chop it up to make it work.

I'm not saying Berman is a saint, but to suggest that Berman is the root of all evil is incredibly shortsighted in context on how his hands were being tied down.

Let's not pander to hyperbole.
Berman is at fault and far from what can be described as the root of "all evil"

To the network, it's mostly dollars and cents. Their "good reasons" are "That is too different! It might not make us money! Lets not take any risks (even if we are on a failing network)!"

I disagree. If it was just dollars and cents then the studio would have demanded more. It was more about status quo. The studio enjoyed the profit the Trek Films gave them. That's why they alloted so little for the budget and force the producers to squeeze out a good product. But that didn't hold down the creativity. The best films in the world have been done on scant budgets.

 

[Broccoli]

It is clear that you are letting your loathing for Rick Berman get in the way of rational thinking.

You are also muddling television production with movie production, implying (perhaps not intentionally) that they work the same way. While similar, the are still very different beasts.

RE: Movies

When it comes to films, the studio forks out the cash and are really looking for that opening weekend BO to make their money back. Sometimes, if the studio is taking a chance on something, they can get jittery and start to make demands of the filmmakers. Sometimes these demands can help a movie. Most times, they hinder the movie. I would think this is due to many studio execs tended not to come from a creative background such as being a writer or director.

In Generations, instead of saying "Hey, Berman. You and your writers go make a kick ass TNG movie", the studio gave Berman a list of stuff the studio wanted in the film. This included Kirk, Kirk's death, destruction of the Enterprise-D, among other things. The writers had to craft a story around plot points others told them to use. Nine times out of ten, that is a sure fire way to make a movie suck.

Example A: Batman & Robin

In First Contact, they were freer to do what they wanted. Now, this becomes a point of contention with you as you seem to not like First Contact. Okay. Fine. You don't have to like it. However, generally speaking, the film got great reviews and is usually ranked up there with TWOK with Trek fans. The film was a critical success. That doesn't mean you are wrong for not liking it. There have been many films that were very well received, but I didn't like.

Example B: Wall-E

The less said about the other two the better, especially the cluster fuck that was Nemesis. Everyone dropped the ball with that one.

RE: Enterprise

When it comes to television, the network is in charge. They fork out the money for the show. The show needs to get good ratings, because the network gets money from advertisers. If no one watches a show, no one sees the commercials, and then no one can buy the products. If advertisers feel their products are not being served well on a TV network, they can stop giving the ads to that network. If they see a show is struggling, regardless of the quality, the network will come in and start giving orders to change things around. Sometimes, a network will shoot down an ideas during the run of a show if they fear it will scare viewers away. Because of that, networks, specifically non-cable networks, seem as if they do not like taking risks and would rather play everything safe.

This has happened many times during Trek network TV history. The biggest example is that the "Year of Hell" storyline was to be a year-long arc during season 4. The network said no to that at the last minute because the idea of a serialized arc was too radical and different for them.

The reason I brought up the alternate Enterprise scenario that B&B pitched was because due to others' posts in this thread in that B&B never took any risks and did the same old, same old.

It wasn't about "This would have been better." It was to provide an example that they wanted to take risks but kept getting being denied.

To the network, it's mostly dollars and cents. Their "good reasons" are "That is too different! It might not make us money! Lets not take any risks (even if we are on a failing network)!"

I disagree. If it was just dollars and cents then the studio would have demanded more. It was more about status quo. The studio enjoyed the profit the Trek Films gave them. That's why they alloted so little for the budget and force the producers to squeeze out a good product. But that didn't hold down the creativity. The best films in the world have been done on scant budgets.

Thing is, though, the network (different from a studio) stops demanding more when the product begins to lose money/ratings. This is what happened in ENT's case.

 

[Saquist]

It is clear that you are letting your loathing for Rick Berman get in the way of rational thinking.

All that I have are the facts. They point to Berman & Braga.

You are also muddling television production with movie production, implying (perhaps not intentionally) that they work the same way. While similar, the are still very different beasts.

Just pointing to the pattern of mediocrity that runs through both productions as the evident demonstrations of mediocrity for the last 11 years before JJ's Star Trek.

RE: Movies

When it comes to films, the studio forks out the cash and are really looking for that opening weekend BO to make their money back. Sometimes, if the studio is taking a chance on something, they can get jittery and start to make demands of the filmmakers. Sometimes these demands can help a movie. Most times, they hinder the movie. I would think this is due to many studio execs tended not to come from a creative background such as being a writer or director.

Dude. I can't objectively decide on Berman's competency based off speculative generalizations against the studio.

In Generations, instead of saying "Hey, Berman. You and your writers go make a kick ass TNG movie", the studio gave Berman a list of stuff the studio wanted in the film. This included Kirk, Kirk's death, destruction of the Enterprise-D, among other things. The writers had to craft a story around plot points others told them to use. Nine times out of ten,

MA, says that "...One of us just kinda threw out, 'What if we kill Kirk?' And we all kinda looked at each other and said, 'Wow. That would be amazing.' ...From that point on, Kirk's death became part of the fabric of our story, and as a big surprise to us all, there was never a moment where it really came into question."

Once of the writers made that suggestion if not Berman himself. This was not studio interference and even it was the idea is not a flawed one. All the Flawed ideas that ruined those films came from the writers.

In First Contact, they were freer to do what they wanted. Now, this becomes a point of contention with you as you seem to not like First Contact. Okay. Fine. You don't have to like it. However, generally speaking, the film got great reviews and is usually ranked up there with TWOK with Trek fans.

Dude. Fans are easy to please.
That was poor movie plot wise but it made it's money. Like Star Trek was a poor movie Plot wise but it made it's money too. I'm never going to "LIKE" something just because everyone else likes it. It has to meet standards like Good Acting, and well Conceived Plot before I stamp approval on it. It's not just about enjoyment factor.

Everyone dropped the ball with that one.

But it was a better plot with less holes than First Contact and yet a very pointless film.

When it comes to television, the network is in charge. They fork out the money for the show. The show needs to get good ratings, because the network gets money from advertisers. If no one watches a show, no one sees the commercials, and then no one can buy the products. If advertisers feel their products are not being served well on a TV network, they can stop giving the ads to that network. If they see a show is struggling, regardless of the quality, the network will come in and start giving orders to change things around. Sometimes, a network will shoot down an ideas during the run of a show if they fear it will scare viewers away. Because of that, networks, specifically non-cable networks, seem as if they do not like taking risks and would rather play everything safe.

All True.

This has happened many times during Trek network TV history. The biggest example is that the "Year of Hell" storyline was to be a year-long arc during season 4. The network said no to that at the last minute because the idea of a serialized arc was too radical and different for them.

I think they were right. I don't think Berman knew what he was doing. Second I don't think Berman knew how to pitch an idea to the studio because it seems most of his ideas are half baked. You see Berman actually got his "Year of Hell" in Enterprise and it was utter crap wasn't it. He renamed it of course. He called it the Temporal Cold War. and it lasted an entire year.

The man was not a great visionary like Roddenberry. His story ideas always needed to be tamed to be realized. Letting him go off with his own ideas was suicide and we see those episodes when ever Berman gets an exclusive hand on the show. He's fixated with time travel with the complete inability to explain them.

The reason I brought up the alternate Enterprise scenario that B&B pitched was because due to others' posts in this thread in that B&B never took any risks and did the same old, same old.

I understand.
Your points on that issue then have a validity but don't be so quick to rush to his defense. The man is no creator, visionary of great intellect. He was Star Trek's prince, heir to Robbenberry's legacy and like any prince he had special ability that made his reign particularly memorable. He could recognize great tallent or great ideas. It seems he was stuck on his own ideas. And I think the Studio saw that.

Thing is, though, the network (different from a studio) stops demanding more when the product begins to lose money/ratings. This is what happened in ENT's case.

ENT was doomed from the beginning. No one was interested in those actors. No one was interested in that monstrosity of a ship. You couldn't tell if it was a bad guy or good guy ship.

I know fans will be fans and love ENT and the rest of Trek good or bad. Fans are supposed to be optimistic .but I tell you I watched that first episode and KNEW that it would be canceled. It was obvious to anyone that wasn't a Trek Fan.

Side Bar
SGU will likely suffer the same.
They have the same elements wrong. Bad Characters and Bad Actors, a crap drab setting and poor plots. But it's more unclear since it's on a dedicated network...they may suffer the low ratings longer than network TV

 

[Anwar]

Actually, the Temporal War was also forced by UPN, not Berman. Seriously, he had way less power over things than a usual Producer did.

Ron Moore could've been Producer, and NOTHING would be different.

 

[Broccoli]

Dude. Fans are easy to please.

Dude. You're contradicting yourself. Dude. If fans are as easy to please, then everyone would have loved everything Star Trek. Go look around this board. That is not the case. You, yourself, suggests otherwise with your anti-Berman Trek stance. Dude.

Actually, the Temporal War was also forced by UPN, not Berman. Seriously, he had way less power over things than a usual Producer did.

Ron Moore could've been Producer, and NOTHING would be different.

Anwar, it's no use. He's just a Berman hater. To him Berman did no good.

Trying to explain that Berman tried to do things different, but was prevented from doing so to shake things up and try to revitalize Trek (kinda like how JJ just did) just gets twisted into "It would have sucked anyway, because Berman was behind it."

 

[xortex]

A Picard clone. That's the height of hubris. Braga must have enjoyed that. Et tu, Braga, anyone? Berman wanted sublety. He didn't want to fight to shake things up. He's a bean counter worried about risks. The one show in the world that should have been allowed to take risks was Star Trek because it was a success before it started. There was a built in audience.

 

[Anwar]

Berman thought it was a bad idea to have VOY air while DS9 while still on the air, and he also thought it was a bad idea to have ENT air so soon after VOY ended.

He was right on both counts. He knew what he was doing, and if UPN had butted out things would be far better.

UPN was the main culprit for VOY and ENT, not Berman.

 

[Broccoli]

A Picard clone. That's the height of hubris. Braga must have enjoyed that. Et tu, Braga, anyone?

Yep. Too bad Braga had nothing to do with Nemesis.

Berman wanted sublety. He didn't want to fight to shake things up. He's a bean counter worried about risks.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Getting a mite prickly in here, isn't it?

It's clear that people have profoundly different opinions here regarding the goodness or badness of Trek shows, movies, producers, and writers. It might be easier to agree to disagree, rather than try to convince someone who has no interest in being convinced, y'know?

If you weren't Berman's (or whoever's) personal assistant and sitting in on every one of his conversations with anyone else, or if you weren't a participant in every story meeting for a script for a Trek show or movie, then it's a stretch to give credit or lay blame here or there in sweeping declarations of absolutes. Such statements actually undermine your argument, because they are not empirical fact, but subjective conclusions.

That is not to say personal opinion is valueless. Some of us enjoyed "First Contact" or "Enterprise," for instance, and not because we are "easy to please."

Scripts can be radically altered from conception to production, and in many cases, the alterations are dictated by people with power, who are not well-trained in effective storytelling. The writer may actually be the one in the room with the most knowledge about how to tell a good story, but he/she is too often the one with the least power to use that knowledge. Even producers have someone to answer to: the suits at the studio or the network who are signing the checks, and may have their own "ideas" for the story.

 

[Saquist]

Actually, the Temporal War was also forced by UPN, not Berman.

Can you verify that statement with a source or anything?

Dude. Fans are easy to please.

Dude. You're contradicting yourself.

Negatory, Senor.
A contradiction must be a directly opposing thought. Yes vs No. Light vs Dark, now vs later.

Dude. If fans are as easy to please, then everyone would have loved everything Star Trek.

No, Dude. Easy doesn't mean "everything".
Easy means minimal effort. But Easy also doesn't mean flawed. Alot of the star Trek movies under TNG Berman were trash because the concepts were flawed, broken, cheap, half baked...etc.

Anwar, it's no use. He's just a Berman hater. To him Berman did no good.

:Misrepresentation:

Dude, I am cable of speaking for myself, less you believe you can more accurately relate my perspective.

Such statements actually undermine your argument, because they are not empirical fact, but subjective conclusions.

That is not to say personal opinion is valueless. Some of us enjoyed "First Contact" or "Enterprise," for instance, and not because we are "easy to please."

My enjoyment of stories is always based on 75% acceptable.
I can't accept holes in the plot just to enjoy a story. It suspends my belief in the story's reality. First Contact had many such holes. Characters out of character bad acting and lack of continuity further diminish a movie.

What is enjoyment to you, how do you quantify what pleases you? What does not please you? Is being easy to please a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[number6]

UPN's interference is covered in the Broken Bow commentary and a few documentary interviews in the DVD set.
There were also such interviews in VOY about UPN's interference in everything from storylines to Janeway's hair.

DS9 and TNG were syndicated shows and were largely left alone to do their thing, unless the ratings slipped.. In DS9's case, that led to Michael Dorn coming back as Worf.

 

[Saquist]

UPN's interference saved DS9. Season 1 through 2 were...nothing short of mediocre.
Way of the Warrior was the best two parter in Trek...upsurping Best of Both Worlds.

My point guys is, since when has interference equal bad.
It's their right. They front the money.
Few of the examples of interferences I've seen actually were bad.

Namely,
Year of Hell
Worf

To call the interference of UPN in with ENT the reason why the series failed means somehow that UPN wrote the stories. It's factual to state that UPN didn't write the story, UPN didn't edit end product, UPN didn't cause all the continuity errors.

Where is facts that say... UPN did "blank" and this was bad as a result and killed the series?

 

[number6]

UPN had nothing to do with DS9.

DS9 was a syndicated show. Bringing on Worf was Rick Berman's idea to boost ratings after TNG left the air.

UPN interfered with ENT repeatedly.. they rejected scripts for not being Trekkish enough. They insisited on keeping the "familiar" trappings of phasers and transporters and doing story homages to the original show.. The list goes on and on.

 

[Broccoli]

Saquist,

You are not comprehending what I, and others, are trying to express. We are not discussing the level of quality across the various Trek projects. That debate is very subjective and open to interpretation with no right or wrong answer.

What we are trying to explain is that some things the producers/writers wanted to do with the Trek shows, especially with VGR and ENT, were flat out rejected by the network. They were denied the chance to explore their creativity and to do something different in order to rejuvenate the Trek franchise.

People claim Berman refused to take risks and always wanted to play everything completely safe when this is simply not the case.

UPN had nothing to do with DS9.
DS9 was a syndicated show. Bringing on Worf was Rick Berman's idea to boost ratings after TNG left the air.

Very true. Also, Paramount, who was forking over the money for DS9, worried a lot about DS9 when it got into the War years. True, Berman didn't care much for the war arc, but was willing to let the writers run with the arc. Paramount studios (different from UPN) hated the war and tried everything to get DS9 back to the "safe zone" of the seasons 1 and 2. Because the politics were different with a show is syndicated, Berman was able to shield DS9 from any dramatic influence from outside sources (though, apparently, there was a lot of negotiation done in the writers' room in order to come to some sort of compromise, almost always in favor of the writers).

And number6 is right. A lot of UPN's interference with ENT can be heard on the "Broken Bow" DVD commentary.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,

You are not comprehending what I, and others, are trying to express. We are not discussing the level of quality across the various Trek projects. That debate is very subjective and open to interpretation with no right or wrong answer.

Everything can be subjective if one wishes.
In fact many things that are supposed to wrong or right are viewed subjectively as a sort of faux-resolution. I personality believe that almost everything can has a quantifiable, measurable presence if it can be dissected and observed.

What we are trying to explain is that some things the producers/writers wanted to do with the Trek shows, especially with VGR and ENT, were flat out rejected by the network. They were denied the chance to explore their creativity and to do something different in order to rejuvenate the Trek franchise.

I completely understand.

People claim Berman refused to take risks and always wanted to play everything completely safe when this is simply not the case.

Yes, that's true...but I'm saying he was uncreative and mediocre. Not that he was specifically refused to take riske

Very true. Also, Paramount, who was forking over the money for DS9, worried a lot about DS9 when it got into the War years. True, Berman didn't care much for the war arc, but was willing to let the writers run with the arc. Paramount studios (different from UPN) hated the war and tried everything to get DS9 back to the "safe zone" of the seasons 1 and 2. Because the politics were different with a show is syndicated, Berman was able to shield DS9 from any dramatic influence from outside sources (though, apparently, there was a lot of negotiation done in the writers' room in order to come to some sort of compromise, almost always in favor of the writers).

Then I've heard contradictory information.

And number6 is right. A lot of UPN's interference with ENT can be heard on the "Broken Bow" DVD commentary.

This would be a great time to explore them.

 

[Anwar]

You can say he was uncreative and mediocre, but he's not a professional writer. However, his ideas as a Producer were sound and if UPN had just listened to him and let him do his job then VOY and ENT would've been better for it. Instead they ignored him and overruled him.

Seriously, Berman is just the scapegoat here.

 

[Captain59]

The paradox for me is that without B&B, there would be no Enterprise to begin with. I wish they left the first season and that Many Coto took over at the beginning of Season 2.

 

[number6]

My understanding is that they didn't just leave and give Manny Coto the keys.. They didn't write many episodes but were still involved in the story process, or at least Braga was..

But I do wish they'd gotten him sooner..

Still Sussman, Black, and Shiban wrote some great episodes in the first two seasons, and each season had something different to offer..

I really wish that show had gotten a fifth year.