Moore is less

[The Wormhole]

But after what he did to BSG?! Forget it!!! He trashed that series completely so I could never trust him with Trek.

"What he did to BSG"? He took one of sic-fi's campiest shows which was held in low regard as a Star Wars knock-off and a "joke" and turned it into a prestigious award winning icon which was even honoured by the United Nations.

Star Trek could only hope for that kind of treatment.

 

[DevilEyes]

Moore is a great writer. He understands plot, character motivation and pacing better than just about any Trek writer.

But after what he did to BSG?! Forget it!!! He trashed that series completely so I could never trust him with Trek.

Well, he copped out of resolving a few important plot points, and some characters were fubared in season 3.5 and 4, and the ending was not entirely satisfactory... but the show was great before that, and he created it in the first place and wrote many of its best episodes, so...

And Starbuck will forever be a MAN!!!

You mean she got a sex change? Was that before or after she... became, uh, an angel? How did Lee and Sam react to the news?








What? You meant something else? I have no idea what that can be, you need to explain.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

But after what he did to BSG?! Forget it!!! He trashed that series completely so I could never trust him with Trek.

Speaking as someone who's view is completley unmarred by nostalgia, I can safely say its a better show than the original. Much in the same sense that the current Fiat 500 is a much nicer car than the old one.

And Starbuck will forever be a MAN!!!

I was hoping for a while that they'd cast Katee Sackhoff as Face in the new A-Team movie.

Oh, well.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Moore was one of the better writers on modern Trek, and I'd certainly like to see his version of a Trek tv series.

 

[Wowbagger]

"The Defector" was his best idea?

Um... "All Good Things", anyone?

 

[SpyOne]

^ I didn't.

PLEASE God, give Moore a chance at his own Trek series!

An ironic thing to say, given that Moore loved it.

You can never 100% trust what people in Hollywood say.

I mean, did he really like it, or does he just think that saying he didn't might mean he'll never write for Star Trek again.
It is very rare for someone in Hollywood to say they hated something, and those that do usually have job security.

Me, I haven't seen it. I bought the DVD about a month ago, but I haven't yet been able to bring myself to watch it. I've read enough spoilers to be worried that I won't be able to set aside my expectations and enjoy it for what it is. I'm afraid that watching it will just make me angry.

My brother said, right after we saw Highlander 2 (and were bashing it pretty hard), "That was not a bad movie. It had an enjoyable plot, good production values, and excellent acting. I just have no idea why they called it Highlander 2." He had a point: it was a decent enough film on its own, it was only when trying to reconcile its story with the first Highlander that it became spectacularly stupid.

 

[TheGodBen]

You really shouldn't judge Trek XI based on what you've heard about it or how it fits into the canon, especially since this movie doesn't fit into the canon, it is purposefully placed in an alternate timeline so that it doesn't conflict with what came before. Personally, I think that it's a poor movie, not because of continuity issues, but because the story doesn't make sense, the dialogue is uninspiring and the attempts at characterisation are almost completely dropped in the third act in favour of an extended action sequence. There is some novelty in seeing the cast from the original Star Trek again, but that wasn't enough to make up for the rest of the movie, at least not for me.

So watch Star Trek XI and judge it on your own terms as a movie. After all, the majority here liked it, so there's every chance that you will too.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Oh look, it's the evil mirror universe version of my "Ronald D. Moore Appreciation Thread" ! I've can't resist showing up to defend the guy. He is by far my favourite Star Trek writer, and now that I'm watching "Battlestar Galactica" for the first time and enjoying it, I like him even more. As I said in my appreciation thread, he is responsible or at least partially responsible for a great many things that I love most in Star Trek.

For example, he co-wrote my favourite episode of DS9 ("Trials and Tribble-ations") and my favourite Star Trek movie ("Star Trek: First Contact"). He also deserves a lot of credit for his expansion and deepening of the Klingon mythos (and in the process, the character of Worf) with the Klingon-centric episodes that he penned.

That jibe the thread starter made about "Voyager" amused me, because my perspective is that he left "Voyager" because he knew that it sucked, was being run by people who were out of ideas, and he was too good for it. The two Star Trek series that he was heavily involved with (TNG and DS9) reached the greatest heights in terms of quality of writing that Star Trek ever has as a franchise, and I know he was a big part of why.

He did write his fair share of stinkers like "The Bonding" and "Generations", but nobody is perfect and even brilliant artists have off days. It's like how every movie director who has directed one of my favourite movies has also directed one or many that I'd consider mediocre and even terrible (which is why it's so hard for me to name favourite directors). Compared to a lot of artists, Ronald D. Moore is extremely consistent, and that's why I would be interested in and support any creative project he does. One of the biggest motivators for me checking out "Battlestar Galactica" was his name being attached to it as an executive producer and I haven't been disappointed yet.

 

[stj]

Considering the unremitting attacks made against Berman and Braga for, what? not making a cool Trek show? the notion that attacking Ron D. Moore with the tiniest fraction of that virulence is somehow trolling is crazy.

Survival Instinct had a scene where four Borg drones are detached from the collective by distance/jamming. They instantly quarrel and try to go in different directions, panicking Seven into choosing to become a miniature Borg Queen. The motivation is nonsense, merely forced characterization to set up a dreary sequence of guilt and confrontation. Sacrificing continuity, characterization, plot coherence, simple sanity about science just to have some sensational scenes pretty much says it all about his supposed skills as a writer. Which is to say, not much. It is amusing that the Voyager bashers can't admit that this episode was the only evidence for the supposed pussification of the Borg,

BattleStar Galactica was critically praised for providing an illusion of being about pressing topical matters, while actually carefully limiting everything it said to officially acceptable views. It was carefully agnostic about virulently reactionary ideas vs. mildly "liberal" (but responsible) ideas. The episode Flesh and Bone, a protorture episode regretting the emotional burden placed on the torturers, came out in a timely fashion to salve wounds made by the revelations of Abu Ghraib. It was vile but won the love and admiration of a certain kind of person. This is why attacking Moore is trolling.

 

[RandyS]

But after what he did to BSG?! Forget it!!! He trashed that series completely so I could never trust him with Trek.

"What he did to BSG"? He took one of sic-fi's campiest shows which was held in low regard as a Star Wars knock-off and a "joke" and turned it into a prestigious award winning icon which was even honoured by the United Nations.

Star Trek could only hope for that kind of treatment.

Okay, I have to ask, how the hell was Original Galactica campy?? Not one person overacted or ever said "Holy Whatever Batman!". The show was not one bit campy. Or a pretentious drama too embarrassed to acknowledge it's sci-fi roots.

So, how was Original Galactica campy?

 

[TheGodBen]

Considering the unremitting attacks made against Berman and Braga for, what? not making a cool Trek show? the notion that attacking Ron D. Moore with the tiniest fraction of that virulence is somehow trolling is crazy.

Firstly, Moore's attacks on B&B were not "unremitting", they stopped a long time ago, he and Braga are even on friendly terms now (just listen to the commentaries for Generations or First Contact).

Secondly, the OP was trolling. If the OP had a negative opinion of Ron Moore that's fine, all he had to do what explain why and give examples. Present an argument, that's what this forum is for. Instead the OP attacked Moore for episodes he didn't write, criticised him for not being allowed to write episodes the way he wanted to, and said completely contradictory things. And when the facts were pointed out to him he just continued, never accepting that his opinions were based upon faulty information.

You are not trolling because you presented an argument, and you used an example from an episode Moore actually wrote. The OP did not. I hope you can see the difference.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

So, how was Original Galactica campy?

Is the sky blue?

Do Vipers fly?

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Or a pretentious drama too embarrassed to acknowledge it's sci-fi roots.

I'd say Moore's version acknowledges its roots quite a lot. Casting Richard Hatch in a recurring role, incorporating the original theme music into several episodes, reworking several plotlines from the original series, many aspects of the visual design...

 

[xortex]

First of all in Hollywood nothing is unremitting. Bridges are not burned publically.
Secondly, does anyone disagree that the Klingons became ridiculous?

 

[xortex]

Moore is a lightweight when it comes to hard sci-fi which I'd like to see Star Trek have more of.

 

[tomalak301]

I was originally joking when I mentioned the whole Deleted scenes thing, but now that the thread has gotten a bit more serious, here were my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

I wouldn't mind if Moore did a trek series. My only concern is I hope it's not the same tone as what he's done with Galactica or Caprica. I'm all for Dark storytelling, but I love shows where this is a mix of both, dark stories with humor and a little hope in there to mix it up. The series that really did this the best was Farscape, and heck, even the recent seasons of Doctor Who do this well too. Everyone these days loves dark, bleak, depressing, "shoot me now" type stories, and if that was in Trek, I would have a problem with that.

As for his thing with Voyager, I think it shows is strangth and weakness. He's a passionate writer, dedicated to his craft and did some fantastic things for Trek. However, the way he bashed Voyager was kind of off-putting. It was never his show, and he was brought on as a guest really. He came across as a little brat storming off the series and then bashing the writers/creators because it wasn't what he thought it was. I think he could have handled that whole situation a lot better, or not even bring it up. There was a time when bashing of Berman and Braga was "cool" and he took absolute advantage of it. If I was Braga, I would be pissed too.

With that being said, I like Moore. I like what he did with TNG and DS9, and his honesty is an endearing quality. I think he would be great for Trek, because he knows trek and is a fan of Trek. I'd really hate to see someone new brought in and then end up being like Stuart Bird in Nemesis, for example.

 

[The Wormhole]

I mean, did he really like it, or does he just think that saying he didn't might mean he'll never write for Star Trek again.

Ron Moore doesn't seem the kind of guy to say he liked something just for a good public opinion. Just listen to any random BSG commentary, he's highly critical of Star Trek in a lot of them. And then there's his infamous rant against Voyager.

If he said he liked Trek XI, then we can assume he actually liked it.

Okay, I have to ask, how the hell was Original Galactica campy?? Not one person overacted or ever said "Holy Whatever Batman!". The show was not one bit campy. Or a pretentious drama too embarrassed to acknowledge it's sci-fi roots.

So, how was Original Galactica campy?

You're asking how a show which depicts military officers wearing disco jackets and capes with creepy robo-dogs for pets is campy? Seriously?

 

[DevilEyes]

Okay, I have to ask, how the hell was Original Galactica campy??

It was not. Camp is a deliberate use of over-the-top, trashy elements for ironic and artistic effect (e.g. the films of John Waters). The original BSG was nowhere that sophisticated or smart. People might interpret it as camp and find campy value in it, but I doubt that this was ever the intention.

 

[RandyS]

Okay, I have to ask, how the hell was Original Galactica campy??

It was not. Camp is a deliberate use of over-the-top, trashy elements for ironic and artistic effect (e.g. the films of John Waters). The original BSG was nowhere that sophisticated or smart. People might interpret it as camp and find campy value in it, but I doubt that this was ever the intention.

Right. It was not the intention. Original Galactica was a classic. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[John200]

no wonder they threw him off of Voyager

lol run off their best writer smart.

Never realised there was so much turmoil on the show ,but I guess it shows.

I have a feeling it would have been more gritty if Moore had his way.

And more confrontation between the Maquis ,and Star Fleet.

More like "Yeah I realise that we need to find a way to work together ,but I'm not going to slap on a uniform just to please you."

Didn't the Maquis outnumber them anyway?

And I know my personality would severely clash with Janeway's