Have you ever given up on a Trek series? If so, what was the last straw for you?

[Richard S. Ta]

I recommend that anyone who likes TOS and TNG give TAS a try, and I'd also suggest that if they try a couple of episodes and it's not their thing, then they should stop watching because it never changes. Sometimes the Spocks get bigger, sometimes the science gets worse, but it's pretty consistent in tone and quality. To my recollection.

Like any Trek, it has a minority of gems, a minority of utter garbage and a lot of average but entertaining stuff sandwiched in the middle.

It has the advantage of being short though. If it's bad, at least it's quick and painless.

Definitely worth it.

 

[DonIago]

This is something that's always annoyed me about Moore and latter-era DS9; it wants to play at "deconstructing" Star Trek but doesn't bother to engage with it in the first place. They just wrote the series they'd rather have made instead of Star Trek and slapped some Trek iconography on it; Behr liked to get giddy over the Federation being "compromised" or w/e but the Federation doesn't recognisably exist in post-S4 DS9 to begin with.

It does confuse me that a huge recurring criticism of Kurtzman-era stuff from DS9 fans is "the writers openly sneer at classic Star Trek and have turned it into a generic dark sci-fi series with muddled serialisation and characters who all talk the same!" when that's a word-for-word description of Moore and Behr's work, the only difference being that Moore/Behr were far more openly hostile to Star Trek than the newer writers.

TL;DR You don't care for (at least later) DS9, but #citationneeded on your claims about fans of DS9.

 

[Starflight]

TL;DR You don't care for (at least later) DS9, but #citationneeded on your claims about fans of DS9.

I don't know how I can cite it; I'd say those are self-evidently common criticisms of Kurtzman Trek seen online.

"the writers hate classic Star Trek"
"it's just a generic dark sci-fi with the Star Trek name on it"
"the Federation/Starfleet doesn't resemble the TOS/TNG version at all"
"the serialisation is handled like shit and the plots just meander" (mystery boxes!)
"the characters all talk the same" (in Discovery's case, via therapy-speak and constant whispered dismay)

You've never come across any of those, and seen the person making the argument then hold up 90s Trek including DS9 (or even specifically Behr-era DS9) as the preferred alternative?

 

[fireproof78]

This is something that's always annoyed me about Moore and latter-era DS9; it wants to play at "deconstructing" Star Trek but doesn't bother to engage with it in the first place. They just wrote the series they'd rather have made instead of Star Trek and slapped some Trek iconography on it; Behr liked to get giddy over the Federation being "compromised" or w/e but the Federation doesn't recognisably exist in post-S4 DS9 to begin with.

It does confuse me that a huge recurring criticism of Kurtzman-era stuff from DS9 fans is "the writers openly sneer at classic Star Trek and have turned it into a generic dark sci-fi series with muddled serialisation and characters who all talk the same!" when that's a word-for-word description of Moore and Behr's work, the only difference being that Moore/Behr were far more openly hostile to Star Trek than the newer writers.

This is something I continually struggle with is the idea of hostility from writers towards the product they're working on. Imagine being angry and irritated and having to write for something you dislike.

 

[bdub76]

This is something I continually struggle with is the idea of hostility from writers towards the product they're working on. Imagine being angry and irritated and having to write for something you dislike.

I remember from the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" that there was a huge turnover of writers for TNG because of all of the rules for the scripts such as no conflict. So I can see writers being frustrated during that period of time.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

I remember from the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" that there was a huge turnover of writers for TNG because of all of the rules for the scripts such as no conflict. So I can see writers being frustrated during that period of time.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Does frustrated equal hostile? Genuine question.

 

[bdub76]

Does frustrated equal hostile? Genuine question.

I never said hostile.

 

[Starflight]

This is something I continually struggle with is the idea of hostility from writers towards the product they're working on. Imagine being angry and irritated and having to write for something you dislike.

With genre fiction there seems to always be inexplicably a pool of writers who treat it with disdain but also desperately want to write for it so they can render it "adult"/"mature" or offer a "genre deconstruction" (which typically seems to mean just writing it as another more popular/acceptable genre).

 

[bdub76]

With genre fiction there seems to always be inexplicably a pool of writers who treat it with disdain but also desperately want to write for it so they can render it "adult"/"mature" or offer a "genre deconstruction" (which typically seems to mean just writing it as another more popular/acceptable genre).

That's why we have fanfic. Do whatever you want to the property, but it's not official.

 

[fireproof78]

I never said hostile.

If you read my response and the post I was responding too the term "hostile" was used about the writers in DS9.

With genre fiction there seems to always be inexplicably a pool of writers who treat it with disdain but also desperately want to write for it so they can render it "adult"/"mature" or offer a "genre deconstruction" (which typically seems to mean just writing it as another more popular/acceptable genre).

Which is an interesting idea because that is what artists do to a degree. They see things as opportunities to be creative and leave their mark. I can imagine many feel some genres are better than others, though that used to be said if rock music vs. opera or big band.

But, frankly, to say a writer seeks a job out of hostility strikes me as extremely odd.

 

[Firebird]

I remember from the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" that there was a huge turnover of writers for TNG because of all of the rules for the scripts such as no conflict. So I can see writers being frustrated during that period of time.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ehhh, Roddenberry's Box wasn't the reason for the high turnover. It was also Gene's scumbag lawyer that poisoned the waters around him, turning Gene against Bob Justman, David Gerrold, and DC Fontana and several others, as well as the lawyer rewriting scripts and snooping around the writers' offices.

 

[CoveTom]

I remember from the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" that there was a huge turnover of writers for TNG because of all of the rules for the scripts such as no conflict. So I can see writers being frustrated during that period of time.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The "no conflict" thing is WAY overstated and quite misunderstood.

Roddenberry never said no conflict. All you have to do is watch "Encounter at Farpoint," which he co-wrote, to see that. Unless one is going to argue that there is no conflict with Q (which is the part he wrote). Or how about "Datalore," for which he co-wrote the teleplay? Seems to me that I recall quite a bit of conflict there.

What Roddenberry said was that he didn't want to see interpersonal conflict among the main Starfleet characters, particularly the humans. He wanted to show that humanity, and the Federation, had evolved past petty interpersonal squabbles. He wanted the conflict to come from outside.

Roddenberry was the direct showrunner during the first season, was heavily involved in the second season, and was still an influence during the third. And yet there is plenty of conflict to be found throughout the first three seasons of TNG.

Roddenberry wasn't dumb enough to think that you could do a one hour drama show each week and have no conflict. However, that is the way some involved (hello again, Ron Moore!) have presented it to the public.

 

[FredH]

It does confuse me that a huge recurring criticism of Kurtzman-era stuff from DS9 fans is "the writers openly sneer at classic Star Trek and have turned it into a generic dark sci-fi series with muddled serialisation and characters who all talk the same!" when that's a word-for-word description of Moore and Behr's work, the only difference being that Moore/Behr were far more openly hostile to Star Trek than the newer writers.

Moore? Openly hostile to Star Trek? The lifelong classic Star Trek fan?

None of these people are hostile to Star Trek — not Moore’s generation, and not Kurtzman’s. They may take different approaches, they may try to do it better, as they see it (and that’s their job, as writers!), but “They hate Star Trek!” — and the frequent corollary “They’ve been *quoted* as hating Star Trek, I’ve definitely seen that somewhere!” — are fanrage nonsense.

 

[1001001]

Moore? Openly hostile to Star Trek? The lifelong classic Star Trek fan?

None of these people are hostile to Star Trek — not Moore’s generation, and not Kurtzman’s. They may take different approaches, they may try to do it better, as they see it (and that’s their job, as writers!), but “They hate Star Trek!” — and the frequent corollary “They’ve been *quoted* as hating Star Trek, I’ve definitely seen that somewhere!” — are fanrage nonsense.

Exactly.

People like or dislike shows for whatever reason, and that’s fine.

Saying writers are “lazy” or “hate Star Trek” is just dumb.

 

[Starflight]

Moore? Openly hostile to Star Trek? The lifelong classic Star Trek fan?

None of these people are hostile to Star Trek — not Moore’s generation, and not Kurtzman’s. They may take different approaches, they may try to do it better, as they see it (and that’s their job, as writers!), but “They hate Star Trek!” — and the frequent corollary “They’ve been *quoted* as hating Star Trek, I’ve definitely seen that somewhere!” — are fanrage nonsense.

Both writers have criticised TNG at length over the years, which is obviously what I'm referring to - and I agree with a great many of the criticisms they've made.

I just think it's funny that that people often accuse the newer writers of sneering at pre-existing entries in the franchise and billing their own work to be a vast improvement*, when Moore and Behr were doing so far more openly than any Kurtzman-era writer ever has. If Kurtzman came out with even half the stuff they did - even if he was saying the exact same things, and directing it toward TNG, and using the mildest language - it'd cause absolute armageddon.

*which, as far as I can tell, no Kurtzman-era writer has ever really done

 

[Firebird]

Both writers have criticised TNG at length over the years, which is obviously what I'm referring to - and I agree with a great many of the criticisms they've made.

I just think it's funny that that people often accuse the newer writers of sneering at pre-existing entries in the franchise and billing their own work to be a vast improvement*, when Moore and Behr were doing so far more openly than any Kurtzman-era writer ever has. If Kurtzman came out with even half the stuff they did - even if he was saying the exact same things, and directing it toward TNG, and using the mildest language - it'd cause absolute armageddon.

*which, as far as I can tell, no Kurtzman-era writer has ever really done

Writers are allowed to be self-critical of their work and the shows they've worked on. That's hardly being "hostile" to Star Trek.

Let's also remember that it has been almost thirty-two years since TNG went off the air. A lot of the post-criticism didn't start hitting until a decade or two after the finale. Last I checked, it's only been a couple of years since Discovery ended. If we're gonna compare fairly, wait until it's been a decade.

 

[bdub76]

Writers are allowed to be self-critical of their work and the shows they've worked on. That's hardly being "hostile" to Star Trek.

Let's also remember that it has been almost thirty-two years since TNG went off the air. A lot of the post-criticism didn't start hitting until a decade or two after the finale. Last I checked, it's only been a couple of years since Discovery ended. If we're gonna compare fairly, wait until it's been a decade.

The true stories never really come out until the folks are retired and done working. This has been at least my experience with Doctor Who. Once the actor or writer is retired, then the gossip gets good.

 

[Tallguy]

What Roddenberry said was that he didn't want to see interpersonal conflict among the main Starfleet characters, particularly the humans. He wanted to show that humanity, and the Federation, had evolved past petty interpersonal squabbles. He wanted the conflict to come from outside.

Yeah. People get that. The writers especially get that.

Nobody thinks that Roddenberry wanted no conflict whatsoever.

 

[CoveTom]

Yeah. People get that. The writers especially get that.

Nobody thinks that Roddenberry wanted no conflict whatsoever.

I disagree. I believe lots of people believe that, and there have definitely been writers who have presented it that way.

 

[Greg Cox]

Moore? Openly hostile to Star Trek? The lifelong classic Star Trek fan?

None of these people are hostile to Star Trek — not Moore’s generation, and not Kurtzman’s. They may take different approaches, they may try to do it better, as they see it (and that’s their job, as writers!), but “They hate Star Trek!” — and the frequent corollary “They’ve been *quoted* as hating Star Trek, I’ve definitely seen that somewhere!” — are fanrage nonsense.

Here's the thing: We all have different priorities and expectations where Trek is concerned, so wanting to make the kinda Trek you, as a fan, always wanted to see is not the same thing as "hating" Trek.

And, honestly, there's no point in doing a new Trek show if you're not going to at least try to put a new spin on it. Now, how far you can tamper with the recipe before you lose more than you gain is always going to be a judgment call, which people of good will can debate, but, again, that doesn't mean you "hate" or "have never watched" the previous versions; it can just mean "we've already done X, so let's trying doing Y this time around."

And critiquing the previous versions, to see what might be improved the next time around, is not being "hostile" to the previous versions. Hell, that's just how things works, as far back as TNG giving Roddenberry a chance to second-guess some of his choices on TOS.

Heck, in his book, The World of Star Trek, David Gerrold devotes several pages to analyzing TOS's strengths and weaknesses, while suggesting ways to remedy the latter in any future versions of Trek. (Like not always sending the captain on dangerous Away Missions.)

Does this mean Gerrold "hated" TOS just because he wanted TNG avoid certain traps that TOS fell into?

Of course not.