RDM - not the answer

[jimbtnp2]

I have got to say the near hero worship of RDM trek is way off base

RDM trek is inward trek and the trek of beating to death details and over focus on each characters every move

His talent seems to be a Tarantinoesq ability to handle individual scenes but not a complete story

TOS was a winner because it focused on strories that the audience can relate to or that made them think - it was not wrapped in character specifics/minutae

 

[JNG]

His talent seems to be a Tarantinoesq ability to handle individual scenes but not a complete story

Probably a germ of valid criticism in there.

My big beef (if I have one): he doesn't know anything about science and seems to think people who like or expect a certain degree of science in science fiction are boors.

 

[smeos]

I always liked his work on DS9, and do believe that Voyager would have been a much better show if things had been done more in his flavor. BSG is good, but overrated, IMO.

 

[SFRabid]

RDM ?

 

[DWF]

RDM ?

Ron D. Moore the former DS9 writer.

 

[The Wormhole]

Moore is probably one of Trek's better writers. My only complaint is that these days he does a bit too much bitching about Trek. The DVD commentary for the BSG mini-series is basically just three hours of him bithcing about Trek and David Eick bitching about other sci-fi shows.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would never want Trek to become like nuBSG. It would destroy the very essence of what I love about Trek - the hope, the optimism, the characters who I *don't* wish would just shut the fuck up and die, the atmosphere that is something other than mind-numbingly depressing.

 

[bullethead]

I would never want Trek to become like nuBSG. It would destroy the very essence of what I love about Trek - the hope, the optimism, the characters who I *don't* wish would just shut the fuck up and die, the atmosphere that is something other than mind-numbingly depressing.

Unless the next Trek is about a lone Starfleet ship escorting a convoy of civilian ships or another galaxy wide war, the I doubt that we'll get something as grimdark as nBSG.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

His ideas for Star Trek are good, and he doesn't cater to the lowest common denomenator. But based on BSG, I'd say that he needs to work in collaboration with people who will reign in his self-indulgent tendencies and keep a sharp eye on the big picture in terms of pacing and overall logic, so that the story is not allowed to bog down, go off in all directions, or end up making no sense at the most basic level.

Other than that, just call me an RDM bootlicker.

 

[Kegek]

What was the question?

Alright, assuming that it is 'Is RDM the solution for Star Trek's woes?' or some variant thereof, Star Trek could do worse than Ron Moore -and he's less of an unknown quantity to me than J.J. Abrams, and certainly a more positive quantity than Orci & Kurtzmann judging by Transformers - though, as Generations attests, Moore isn't always the sharpest summer blockbuster scribe either. However, he's still one of the old guard from the Berman era so, while he may be good, he's not new blood by any means.

And yes, I think Moore's a good writer. He was one of the more consistently good writers of the aforesaid Berman years. But I think plenty of the others were in his league, too, but that's just my two cents.

 

[RandyS]

What's wrong with character specifics and minutae? That's something that outside of Kirk and Spock , I always thought TOS was lacking, and the other shows did better. We never learned anything about Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu or Chekov, and I thought that was a waste.

 

[Kegek]

^
They were part of the furniture. The engineer, the coms officer, the navigator, etc. They mainly existed to serve the story. They could have their dramatic moments, distinguished by their personalities, and even have subplots, but that's it. I think they got all the exposure we needed, really.*

*Except for Bones, who was part of the top-tier Big Three who starred in the show. There's a reason Kelley, Nimoy and Shatner had their names in the starring credits.

 

[jimbtnp2]

His ideas for Star Trek are good, and he doesn't cater to the lowest common denomenator. But based on BSG, I'd say that he needs to work in collaboration with people who will reign in his self-indulgent tendencies and keep a sharp eye on the big picture in terms of pacing and overall logic, so that the story is not allowed to bog down, go off in all directions, or end up making no sense at the most basic level.

Other than that, just call me an RDM bootlicker.

What about his ST ideas do you find good?

 

[jimbtnp2]

What's wrong with character specifics and minutae? That's something that outside of Kirk and Spock , I always thought TOS was lacking, and the other shows did better. We never learned anything about Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu or Chekov, and I thought that was a waste.

to start by definition its usually fluff - what or how does it add to the story telling?

 

[jimbtnp2]

^
They were part of the furniture. The engineer, the coms officer, the navigator, etc. They mainly existed to serve the story. They could have their dramatic moments, distinguished by their personalities, and even have subplots, but that's it. I think they got all the exposure we needed, really.*

*Except for Bones, who was part of the top-tier Big Three who starred in the show. There's a reason Kelley, Nimoy and Shatner had their names in the starring credits.

correct

 

[Balthier the Great]

I never found any of the characters in BSG the least bit interesting. Might be just me, but it seems like there's no real rhyme or reason to some of the things he does with his characters. The whole doctor scrogging the cylon -- and seemingly no one notices. Wha...

As far as Trek goes, I'd be looking as far away from Trek as possible for future trek writers/producers. I want a guy who can write a great story with characters that people give two shits about. I want a scifi guy with a proven track record. I'm not sure that's Moore, I don't think it's JJ either.

 

[SFRabid]

I would never want Trek to become like nuBSG. It would destroy the very essence of what I love about Trek - the hope, the optimism, the characters who I *don't* wish would just shut the fuck up and die, the atmosphere that is something other than mind-numbingly depressing.

I watched BSG for a while and then one day realized that I do not enjoy the show. There are better things to do with my time than watch something that makes me depressed.

 

[pookha]

i still watch it and enjoy certain aspects of bsg but some of characters have just gone off in strange directions without a lot of reason given.

 

[jimbtnp2]

I never found any of the characters in BSG the least bit interesting. Might be just me, but it seems like there's no real rhyme or reason to some of the things he does with his characters. The whole doctor scrogging the cylon -- and seemingly no one notices. Wha...

As far as Trek goes, I'd be looking as far away from Trek as possible for future trek writers/producers. I want a guy who can write a great story with characters that people give two shits about. I want a scifi guy with a proven track record. I'm not sure that's Moore, I don't think it's JJ either.

100% agreed, its like we're in a dark ages of good story telling, and creative entertainment in general

 

[jimbtnp2]

i still watch it and enjoy certain aspects of bsg but some of characters have just gone off in strange directions without a lot of reason given.

RDM calls it character development - I call it BS