Lightning Storm, About the Founders. I don't believe they ever really wanted to know what it was like to be human. When they could 'be' anything they wanted to be, perhaps limiting themselves to one form of existence/living might be abhorrent to many of them. I think the took the form of people they needed to achieve whatever their goals were at the time, nothing more. They didn't want to understand humans or humanoids because they already thought they did, from their previous history with 'solids'.
I agree. The Founders HATED us. They were trying to wipe each and everyone of us out just to get one of their own back. They never wanted to know what it was to be like us, they took human form to manipulate Odo into coming back to the Great Link. However, do disagree with you too Darkush on how I think you see Trek on the whole. Trek isn't about war or a villain you can't make peace with. Trek is all about peace. Gene Roddenberry wrote all that stuff Picard said about higher evolved people. We explore the galaxy looking for things to make us more intellectual. Being higher evolved means acceptance or tolerance everywhere you go in the galaxy. Speciea 8472 represents someone like Muslim Terrorists who view our way of life as threat on theirs. They want to wipe every last one of us out. However, in the 24th century we don't believe in fighting fire with fire. We believe in making peace by any means necessary, even if it costs us our lives so that others may live. Even Sisko died to keep Bajor and all of the Alpha Quaderant safe.
I don't see Trek as totally being about war or villians. However, I do see Trek as a dramatic TV program, and movie series that often employs villians or hostile races that serve as obstacles to the heroes/protagonists. Whenever those situations arise, I want that villian or hostile species to be a very dangerous opponent so it ups the suspense and tension. There are some scientific-focused stories, comedic episodes, even some romantic ones that I liked as well on various Treks. However, I'm a pulpy guy and I like to see action/adventure. TOS was good at combining all those elements into one show a lot of times. The other Treks did so in varying degrees. I do think Roddenberry made a mistake with the TNG evolved humans. I can understand to some extent why he went there but it helped leech a lot of potentially interesting interpersonal conflict from the crew. It forced almost all the threats to be external. I always enjoyed it when Ro Laren was on, or Barclay, Nechayev, Shelby, or Jellico episodes. These characters were more interesting because they were allowed to have quirks, foilables, or attitudes. Worf was the only TNG character IMO that was allowed to be less than perfect-his Klingon heritage the excuse of course. But he was perhaps the most 'alive' character onboard the Ent-D. Exodus, I don't think that Star Trek is necessarily about peace, more so the quest for peace. The attempt to be better than the way we are now. I don't think you have to leech humans of their flaws or quirks to do that. Babylon 5 didn't, and many other space operas haven't either. To me, it's more interesting to see a character similar to me, or us as whole, struggling with something. When they finally arrive at an answer, it's more meaningful to me than if a perfect character pulls some technobabble solution out of thin air.
^^Roddenberry made Trek just the way "he" wanted it, not how you or I wanted it. That's the great thing about being artistically creative. You don't have to care what others think, as long as you're happy with what you created that's all that matters. If others like it, then that's the icing on the cake. So Gene idea must have been ok, because it reached millions worldwide. Dude seriously, let B5 be B5 and let Trek be Trek. Out of 5 Trek shows it just happened two series that are similar aired at the same time, it happens alot. However. with 4 other shows Trek has established exactly the type of galazy it takes place in. If DS9 exists with in that same galaxy, it still has to follow the rules the others set up for it. Therefore, DS9 can never be B5 no more than B5 be a Trek show.
Apparently I am not being clear here. Of course the Founders didn't want to be human, neither did 8472! See, it's about NEED not want. 8472 hated us just as much if not more than the Founders. But their tactic of learning to be human in order to conquer us teaches them valuable lessons about how humans act and therefore allows them to blend in MUCH better than any founder ever would have. 8472's goal in that impersonation was not to find common ground with humans, but to learn how we act so that they can infiltrate us. The unseen thing however, would have been of course they would have automatically learned a common ground because they would truly know what it is to be human. Also point of correction. The Founders did not seek to DESTROY they sought conquering and subjugation. They wanted to hold dominion over the Alpha Quadrant, not destroy it, there's a rather large difference there. Now, because we offered up such a huge resistance they wouldn't have cared if they wiped us out simply because they didn't care one way or the other. But their goal was not destruction.
Actually I think Roddenberry cared about if other people liked his work. Obviously if they didn't, he wouldn't get paid. Roddenberry was the driving force behind TOS and early TNG, but he had help, so there appeared to be lot of input there which implied that Roddenberry could listen to other opinions or incorporate other people's ideas into what he was doing. Yes, millions of people like Trek. This board wouldn't exist if Trek didn't have fans. But all you have to do is scroll through the various forms to see that people have a billion criticisms about the various Trek shows. Just as a creator has a right to make things the way they see fit, fans have a right to complain, cajole, or suggest alternatives for things they don't like about that creation. But you act like we should just take it all in with no complaints. I think you missed my point about B5. I also said 'and other shows' or something to that affect too, but I guess B5 was a red flag for you. The point I was trying to make was that B5, X-Files, Farscape, etc. and some of the other sci-fi shows of the 90's showed a comparatively 'more realistic' view of humans, which made them a bit more relatable to me. Of course not many of those shows were as successful as the Trek shows have been, or have created the kind of legacy that TOS and TNG have. However I would contend that the TOS humans were far more 'human' than the TNG ones were. It's been stated before that Trek has borrowed stuff from other TV shows, movies, etc. and similarly other works have borrowed from Trek. I don't see what the big deal would be about borrowing or using more a contemporary take on human characters-showing them less than perfect. DS9 did this, and the world didn't end. All I would like to see is more moral complexity, shadings of gray with their characters. Almost every drama on TV today does that. The Trek formula is 40 years old. It was a response to the 60's. This is the 21st century, a decade after the Eugenics Wars . It makes sense to me that if Trek wants to be relevant again-and TOS was created in part to provide topical social commentary in a sci-fi setting to blunt its impact-then it has to adapt to the times. Or at least show the tension between holding on to your ideals v. the new mores.
^^I'm happy you liked DS9 but you do understand DS9 was the start of Treks decline. Viewers turned away from DS9 just like they did Voy. & ENT. So if DS9 didn't capture a new bigger audience, why would another Trek just like it? Voy. characters were even more flawed than DS9's & it didn't help it. Viewership dropped off drastically during the first 3 seasons. Janeways whole theme was holding onto morals & ethics in a region they didn't apply. Trek tried all types of ideas and tried giving us what we asked for and Trek fans still didn't care. Nothing but nothing satisfied them. B5 couldn't hold enough numbers itself to stay on ratings based TV. It only survived due to cable, at least most Trek was able to do that. B5 has yet to have a successful spin off even close to equalling any by Trek. Trek is still making merchendise & movies, where is B5, X-Files or Farscape? No spin off's and discontinued merchendise.
You are right that DS9 was the start of Trek's decline. Everyone has a reason why, but the fact remains that the ratings for DS9 weren't there. I do have to say though that DS9 had more sci-fi competition than TNG did, but I don't know how much that affected the ratings at all. That being said, VOY did nothing to reverse the downward trend, and ENT was the final straw...for the moment. The TNG movies also didn't revitalize Trek. You are also right that Trek continues to be a major seller, whereas B5, Farscape, X-Files and so many other sci-fi shows haven't been. I contend though that TOS/TOS movies are the major money makers for Trek, and that was the first show-DS9 being the second IMO-that didn't portray humans as so perfect. I tend to think that the open ended nature of Trek, and its expansive universe have helped it to make so successful, whereas B5 was supposed to have a beginning, middle and ending. Also, Farscape and X-Files were also more arc dependent, and I think perhaps that hampered their ability to franchise. I think the VOY characters had some angst-primarily on paper, but I don't think they were more flawed than the DS9 characters. And what what few quirks or flaws the VOY crew had were often played down, except for the Doctor and Seven of Nine. Torres too would get to occassionally growl. As for satisfying fans, I don't think you can ever satisfy everyone all the time. However, I don't think Trek really did try everything, or take enough risk to keep their fans and also expand the fan base. That being said, I sometimes wonder if Star Trek's time has run out. It filled a niche in the 60's and late 80's/early 90's but it's not seen as cool or contemporary anymore. It's not must-see viewing like 24, Lost, or BSG was until season three. I don't know if Trek can grow its audience and remain "Trek". Personally, I'm open to some change so long as the do at least keep the social commentary aspect of Trek. That to me set Trek apart from other sci-fi shows.
^^I think the fact that many of us can come into the Trek based forums and still find subjects to talk about proves Trek's time hasn't run out. Like everything in life there are peaks and valley's. Eveything that hits a high point has no other place to go but down. Trek like everything else needs time to rest and regroup. Why else do you think TNG was so big decades after TOS ended?