RDM - not the answer

[Eric Cheung]

As I recall, it was Michael Piller who made it clear that UPN torpedoed pretty much anything that would have taken Voyager away from what they wanted it to be. The notion that Moore would have been somehow able to change this mindset is ridiculous.

I was under the same impression. Being on UPN they had more sets of suits to get by than they did on DS9.

I'm perfectly okay with Moore being out of Trek. The episodes of nBSG I saw did nothing for me, and his recent tendency to bitch about Trek - thus biting the hand that fed him for quite a few years - would suggest he doesn't want a lot to do with it any more, anyway.

RDM can and should move on, but I don't think he's biting the hand that fed him. He, and a lot of others have made similar criticisms, even while they were on TNG's staff. I think they were fairly honest about the challenges of writing 24th century Trek.

 

[jimbtnp2]

the term 'Character developement' is so ridiculously used its become cliche

NO ONE watches a show simply because of character developement - they watch it because the STORY is entertaining - and they enjoy the way their fav Characters relate the story

has any Seinfeld character developed in 9 years on TV - NO if they did people would stop watching - your example is flawed

I didn't use the term development in relation to Seinfeld, only character. Even so, the example still flies. The jokes are funny because of the characters. The characters aren't funny just because of the jokes. The jokes are merely one layer of what makes it funny.

the idea that you surmise was the good of DS9 was in fact its flaw - lets see how obrien reacts to x or kira reacts to y - no one really gives a rats azz as how THEY react - people want to see an issue/conflict and a resolution delivered in a compelling way, period - i do agree that of course some characters are more interesting at relating the problem hence we like Kirk, Indiana Jones, Sigorney etc -

No. When an episode is about an issue more than the characters the end result is usually a preachy episode where the characters lecture the audience. Starting with a plot is what TNG and VOY did and it resulted in the criticism that pervades these boards of those two shows. That said, both shows did have their moments when they knew what to do with their characters, though TNG probably had more of them because it was growing and moving towards what DS9 would become at its best.

There's a book that illustrates the difference between DS9 and VOY's approach brilliantly: Star Trek: Action!

On DS9 they're working on how to kill off Jadzia so that it feels organic and not over-written, all of which is preface for the scene they're working on staging in which Sisko mourns Jadzia.

On VOY they have a cool idea for the fourth season finale and retroactively fit the characters into the plot.

I will concede that perhaps it's presumptuous of either of us to presume what everyone likes in their stories. Some people really do like procedurals. I'm just not one of them because more often than not the characters are more-or-less interchangeable. That said, even VOY and ENT had far more character development than most of those shows.

First - I agree that Voyager is a crapfest - no arguement there
comparing anything to voyager is a no contest of course DS9 wins
But TOS is way times a better Scifi/drama then DS9 for the reasons stated
TOS wasn;t preachy, but it did have an underlying message that resonates

I agree that people like the characters of Seinfeld - but you said character development was what people wanted and what made Seinfeld good - No way - and people WOULD stop watching seinfeld if it ceased to be funny - sounds obvious but it seems you don;t get it - if a comedey isn;t funny people stop watching - if ST isn;t a good story - people stop watching - in both cases REGARDLESS of the characters - its always story over characters
The same applies to TOS - great characters relating great stories - but is that the same as character development soapish - Not even close

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

RDM's BSG is one of the best character driven dramas on TV. Great writing, great acting and great stories. Everything I could possibly want from a show. Much of it is what Voyager should have been.

 

[jimbtnp2]

RDM's BSG is one of the best character driven dramas on TV. Great writing, great acting and great stories. Everything I could possibly want from a show. Much of it is what Voyager should have been.

If you like nuBSG try 'Days of our Lives' or 'As the World Turns' - you'll likely find you enjoy those as well

 

[Jack Bauer]

^^^ Nope. Don't be silly. There's a big difference between BSG and those kinds of soap operas. Soaps are mainly about extramarital affairs and unknown children popping up and who's screwing who. BSG is way more than that. Soaps are generally over the top while BSG is more grounded in reality.

 

[jimbtnp2]

^^^ Nope. Don't be silly. There's a big difference between BSG and those kinds of soap operas. Soaps are mainly about extramarital affairs and unknown children popping up and who's screwing who. BSG is way more than that. Soaps are generally over the top while BSG is more grounded in reality.

LOL - i honest disagree - i see way more similarities to soap opera than adult drama or classic scifi

 

[KayArr]

Thank goodness he didn't stick with Voyager! Out of the 5 series, the only one I own no seasons of is DS9. He was fine with TNG scripts, then went off into territory I don't like much with DS9. I watched and loved seasons 1 and 2 of new BSG, but boy did it go downhill FAST in season 3. It's completely unwatchable now.

All this character development worship is a new thing--I remember when there was no such thing on tv. Is there character development in TOS? Heck no, nor in TNG. Proper character development is actually pretty hard to do--new BSG has destroyed the characters so thoroughly that I can no longer watch. I like parts of the modern character development trend and enjoy some modern shows--but watching old 70s and 80s cop and PI shows with tense, well-written stories in which drama comes from scripts and not weird editing and erratic camera work can be quite a refreshing change of pace. Try it some time.

The modern love of "character development" as some kind of holy grail of television leaves me a little cold. Almost all tv used to be episodic--that doesn't make it all bad if the underlying theme of the show is a good one...like ST:TOS. Shows that evolve with arcs and all can be great, but if the premise is one that bores you (DS9), just having character development can't save it for me. In some ways, shows with character development go off the rails the fastest when new writers come along or when ideas get stale--it's HARD to do consistently--Lost, Alias, new BSG, all these shows lost their way. DS9 may have stayed consistent (from what's written here), but I didn't like the premise, so I didn't watch.

 

[The Wormhole]

blasphemy thread. He'll smite you ya know.

Doubt Him not, Brothers and Sisters, for His rage knows no boundaries, yet be ever thankful, for His forgiveness is greater.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1807830&postcount=117

And the award for weirdest image I've ever seen goes to...

 

[SFRabid]

^^^ Nope. Don't be silly. There's a big difference between BSG and those kinds of soap operas. Soaps are mainly about extramarital affairs and unknown children popping up and who's screwing who. BSG is way more than that. Soaps are generally over the top while BSG is more grounded in reality.

I thought the Cylons were the children, they kept popping up, and the stories were frequently driven by who is screwing who, including who is screwing the Cylons.

 

[Eric Cheung]

I agree that people like the characters of Seinfeld - but you said character development was what people wanted and what made Seinfeld good - No way - and people WOULD stop watching seinfeld if it ceased to be funny - sounds obvious but it seems you don;t get it - if a comedey isn;t funny people stop watching - if ST isn;t a good story - people stop watching - in both cases REGARDLESS of the characters - its always story over characters
The same applies to TOS - great characters relating great stories - but is that the same as character development soapish - Not even close

I reread my posts. I never said anything about character development in Seinfeld, only character. There is a massive difference. The characters in Seinfeld don't grow much, it's a show about minutia after all. But it is the characters that inform the comedy. If it weren't then you could replace them all with Vulcans and the jokes would have the same effect.

TOS is brilliant because we did see things through characters. They weren't as developed as in DS9 until the movies, but they were developed sufficiently that those stories wouldn't have worked were they simply their professions.

I think we both actually agree that characters are important, I just hold the view that a story is better if the characters have more depth, but is not neccesarily better if the plot is intricate.

I'll step back from my initial judgement that your view is inherently wrong, though.

 

[stj]

The opposition between character and plot is imaginary. In good plotting, the characters try to achieve their goals. Since talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words, what the characters do or choose shows us their character. We know a lot about Kirk and Spock and McCoy that way.

In practice, the phrase character driven seems to mean a preference for soap opera, where the characters are jammed into melodramatic scenes where they talk about their feelings. Or for backstories, which often stroke the narcissism of viewers who identify with that character. Or for enactments of various fantasies, often repeatedly. The O'Brien torture stories are a bad example cited already in the thread. Character driven stories, as in the Cylons have such and such a plan aimed to achieve this and that, are not wanted.

The notion that there is a problem with Trek seems odd. There are hundreds of hours of Trek. After VCRs and DVRs and computer downloads Trek's not going anywhere.

As far as new Trek goes? Computers don't act the way they do on the show. There's nothing about genetic engineering which is startin right now. There's nothing about climate change either. Trek just isn't relevant. It's also dated politically. Trek has clung to wisps of its Sixties progressivism for decades. An audience could appreciate a Balance of Terror episode, partly about how the enemy is human too. New audiences would apparently rather play around with daydreams of genocide, even complain vociferously when they don't get it! In other words, Trek is retro. There just isn't much demand for retro.

 

[Navaros]

It is true RDM is not the answer, and nuBSG is nothing but a who-is-screwing-who soap opera (sorry, but that does not make for a 'character-driven drama').

However, RDM's critcisms of Voyager are totally valid. The other Trek shows paled in comparison to and frankly, were vastly inferior to DS9 due to having almost zero story development and zero character development; whereas DS9 had both in spades.

The original poster is wrong with the statement that focusing on characters is a bad thing. It is a bad thing if there is nothing to the characters other than how much they fornicate with each other from one week to the next, as is the case on nuBSG. But it's not inherently a bad thing in all cases just because Moore has turned it into a bad thing on nuBSG specifically. That's a problem specific to the characters and show in question not having anything going for them/it. The concept of character development & focus is a great one and should be utilized in every Trek show as much or moreso than it has been on DS9. That's not to say turn it into a screwfest soap opera like nuBSG, though.

'Character driven drama' is not equal to 'giant screwfest orgy week in and week out'. That is the problem by bringing RDM into the equation. What RDM has done with nuBSG is a disgrace to the concept of 'character driven drama' thus associating his name with the concept paints a tarnished image of it that need not be part of what 'character driven drama' actually is.

There is no reason that a show cannot have both great stories and great character focus & development. DS9 proves this. For any Trek to be able to compete with DS9 at all in terms of quality, it will have to likewise have both.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...nuBSG is nothing but a who-is-screwing-who soap opera.

This is untrue, and mistaken.

Though I imagine any actual sexuality in a TV series or movie is pretty close to overload for skiffy fans used to the likes of "Star Trek" or B5 or "Star Wars."

 

[drasche]

It is true RDM is not the answer, and nuBSG is nothing but a who-is-screwing-who soap opera (sorry, but that does not make for a 'character-driven drama').

You have to watch the show (and I don't mean pick some episodes) to see how wrong you are.

 

[Eric Cheung]

It is true RDM is not the answer, and nuBSG is nothing but a who-is-screwing-who soap opera (sorry, but that does not make for a 'character-driven drama').

It's a show for grownups about ethical relativism involving grownups by grownups. That's maybe the biggest thing that makes it different from Trek and Wars. It also means that in order to capture the whole of grownup experiences it would be amiss not to include the violence, language, and sexuality it does include.

Also, my earlier talking points about character versus plot refer mostly to the process that the writers go through, not the preference of viewers.

 

[carriefox]

^^^ Nope. Don't be silly. There's a big difference between BSG and those kinds of soap operas. Soaps are mainly about extramarital affairs and unknown children popping up and who's screwing who. BSG is way more than that. Soaps are generally over the top while BSG is more grounded in reality.

Apperently you have never watched a soap before.

Soap's aren't alway's about what you decribed. They have covered everything from Alcoholism to Rape.


BSG isn't doing anything new. Soap's did it first.

The only difference is that Soap's have accually won Emmy's for those stories.

 

[Eric Cheung]

Another difference is that soap operas are saturated with exposition to the point where nothing ever happens on screen, unless it's that one Passions with the magic and witches. The characters are constantly talking about stuff that will happen, or did happen.

And in order for soaps to win Emmys they didn't just create its own category, they created its own separate show in the Daytime Emmys. It's not many steps above a Hugo in popular consciousness.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Apperently you have never watched a soap before.

Soap's aren't alway's about what you decribed. They have covered everything from Alcoholism to Rape.

I agree. I've enjoyed soaps over the years and you can clearly see how all serialized dramas borrow from them in various ways from the large ensembles, the cliffhanger endings with every episode, the storylines that last for years, plot complications delaying things from being revealed, build up to big moments. Yes, some soaps have melodrama or bizarre ideas like evil twins, hidden character connections etc but is that much different from sci-fi/fantasy but look at Lost or Heroes.

And every serialized drama I've ever watched has shoehorned in for better or worse romantic relationships which tend to be the least interesting compared to all the other stuff going on. Look at Lost with Kate/Jack or Heroes with Isaac/Simone/Peter or DS9 with Ezri/Worf/Bashir or nBSG with its love quadrangle.

And soaps have addressed stuff usually as frontrunners as pointed out above like alcoholism, mental illness, gay relationships, AIDS, teenage pregnancy etc.

As far as BSG--I'm not too crazy about the show. I think Moore is a much better writer than showrunner. The BSG characters are unlikeable, the show can't seem to balance character and plot, the Cylons aren't interesting and potential villians like Zarek aren't exploited other than as plot devices, there is far too much material edited out of episodes contributing to a very choppy feel to the narrative.

 

[jimbtnp2]

Thank goodness he didn't stick with Voyager! Out of the 5 series, the only one I own no seasons of is DS9. He was fine with TNG scripts, then went off into territory I don't like much with DS9. I watched and loved seasons 1 and 2 of new BSG, but boy did it go downhill FAST in season 3. It's completely unwatchable now.

All this character development worship is a new thing--I remember when there was no such thing on tv. Is there character development in TOS? Heck no, nor in TNG. Proper character development is actually pretty hard to do--new BSG has destroyed the characters so thoroughly that I can no longer watch. I like parts of the modern character development trend and enjoy some modern shows--but watching old 70s and 80s cop and PI shows with tense, well-written stories in which drama comes from scripts and not weird editing and erratic camera work can be quite a refreshing change of pace. Try it some time.

The modern love of "character development" as some kind of holy grail of television leaves me a little cold. Almost all tv used to be episodic--that doesn't make it all bad if the underlying theme of the show is a good one...like ST:TOS. Shows that evolve with arcs and all can be great, but if the premise is one that bores you (DS9), just having character development can't save it for me. In some ways, shows with character development go off the rails the fastest when new writers come along or when ideas get stale--it's HARD to do consistently--Lost, Alias, new BSG, all these shows lost their way. DS9 may have stayed consistent (from what's written here), but I didn't like the premise, so I didn't watch.

Thanks for jumping in, your comments are refreshing - you do a better job of stating my thoughts then I can

While I'm not as harsh on DS9 i think you hit the nail on the head ( with a large hammer). I'll keep an eye out for your posts

 

[cultcross]

It is true RDM is not the answer, and nuBSG is nothing but a who-is-screwing-who soap opera (sorry, but that does not make for a 'character-driven drama').

It's a show for grownups about ethical relativism involving grownups by grownups. That's maybe the biggest thing that makes it different from Trek and Wars. It also means that in order to capture the whole of grownup experiences it would be amiss not to include the violence, language, and sexuality it does include.

Exactly. BSG is about moral and ethical decisions in extreme circumstances, and dealing with the consequences of those actions. Do the concepts of right and wrong fall apart because humanity is facing extinction? What level of 'grey area' is acceptable under such a circumstance?

An example,

Spoiler: BSG Season 2 Ending

Roslin attempting to fix the presidential election. In most shows, this would be a Bad Thing (tm). But on BSG we get both sides - and we are able to identify with her motives as being ethically grounded, in their own way.

The show's strength is presenting moral and ethical dilemmas from both sides and then letting the viewer decide whether a course of action the characters eventually take was right, or taking things too far. The show doesn't automatically raise its characters or their decisions on a pedestal, (such as 24, for example, has a tendency to do) but also doesn't condemn them.

And as for darkness, if anything the show is quite light for its subject matter. All but ~45,000 humans have been wiped out. The loss and grief would be phenomenal, in many ways BSG pulls back from really tackling the darkness inherent from such a catastrophe.