• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Real-world people like Admiral Pressman from "The Pegasus"

People who say that RDM would've changed VOY entirely again simply haven't done any research into the problems VOY suffered from and think that the Producers/Writers had the same power over it that DS9's team had on their show. They didn't, and Moore wouldn't. Moore also didn't do any research and stupidly blamed Braga for everything, which is what partially led to him becoming the series scapegoat.

Piller was fired actually, "asked to leave". Since he was off the show before B&B were, he was more free to talk about the problems UPN gave them all.
 
Interesting...I don't ever recall reading anything from Piller about the problems with the show, although I'm hardly an expert. At the risk of seeming really nosey, why was he fired?
 
Piller said that UPN ordered them to have the Maquis all be in Fleet uniforms by the end of the pilot and not have any disagreements among the crews. He felt this hurt the show and messed up a lot of their future arc potential.

He tried his best to do arc storytelling anyways, which led to his dismissal.
 
TNG had few arcs, and it was a stellar series (no pun intended).

Voyager's problems, in my mind, were deeper than that.
 
TNG's plot and premise didn't call for lots of arcs and stuff, VOY's did.

I too think that VOY's premise itself needed work.

For example: The Maquis, these guys were over-hyped. They were never going to be the massive series-wide source of tension and conflict most were hoping for, especially since the main reason for the conflicts was now 75000 light years away. Aside from the DMZ they had no other differences from the Feds.

Want real tension? The other crew should've been Romulans, they've been the enemies of the Feds since BEFORE the Federation and have legitimate differences with them to conflict over.

Also, they shouldn't have known where Earth was in relation to their position. Always being on the move means you can't develop your surroundings to any decent extent. Farscape had Moya's crew not knowing where they were and so they had to fly around to all inhabited worlds to look for clues while staying in the same general area of the Uncharted Territories. This means you can properly develop your recurring villains and aliens, which VOY never would've been able to do if they knew where Earth was. If they had been given the semi-stationary position needed to develop their own original creations they wouldn't have had to fall back on the Borg.

Those are my two sticking points.
 
I think the fact that the Borg were re-introduced in season 3 of VOY was just a sign that the creativity was drying up. I mean, TOS, TNG and DS9 all managed to give us interesting new villains. VOY did not.
 
It took years for TOS, TNG and DS9 to develop their villains. VOY didn't have that advantage since always being on the move towards Earth meant they wouldn't run into the same aliens more than a few times. How the heck was Voyager supposed to create several villains, each one as deep as the Klingons, Romulans or Cardassians, within 5 episodes?
 
TOS only really used the Romulans twice (I'm not counting "The Deadly Years), and the results were good in both eps. I think VOY could've created a villain with vast space that the ship would've had to get through over the course of a season or even half of a season. Perhaps that's what Braga was going for with "Year of Hell". But the ship was out of Borg territory after "The Gift", and the use of them in the later seasons (starting with Dark Frontier) seems lazy. I admittedly haven't seen a lot of episodes from seasons 6 and 7 though.
 
They SAID that they were out of Borg territory, but that the Borg show up in the Alpha Quadrant is proof enough that their traveling ability is great so it doesn't really matter if you're in their space or not.

The Romulans had the added bonus of the Vulcan connection and already being an old enemy of the Feds before they were even introduced. Neither of which could be replicated to any extent in Voyager. And in both Romulan cases the Feds were the ones after them, not vice-versa.

And seeing how when VOY ran into any villains more than 2 times or so the audience reaction was always negative, it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Even the well received ones like the Vidiians.
 
With regards to the topic that's come from the OP; I find it a refreshing discussion that isn't bashing B&B mercilessly. Sure, they had their faults at times (I remember a particularly suspect series finale :p), but between them we got a lot of enjoyable stories across four series of Trek, and I think they (Berman in particular) deserves a lot more credit for being committed to bringing us such a long and successful franchise after Roddenberry's death.

I've read various articles regarding the studio's demands and meddling, and I can never understand it (the way they imposed a lot of rules on the character of Janeway springs to mind). What could possibly have been so damaging about having an ongoing conflict between two crews in Voyager or making the ship a little less shiny and damage-free every now and then, especially after they started becoming more reliant on CGI? It could've been done in such a way that wouldn't confuse casual viewers and still be interesting and believable, I'm sure.

With regards to the original question, I suppose I've never come across anyone with Pressmanesque tendencies, though I've certainly come across managers and directors at work who can be as stubborn and as bloody-minded as him at times.

The episode did seem to be resolved all too quickly, but as stated further upthread, the ramifications of the story were huge, and feasibly could've occupied more than just a two-parter. I think in the end, we got a fairly entertaining morality tale with a fairly satisfying (if not totally believable) ending, for what was then the norm: non-serialised TV with few episodes having a lasting impact.
 
There was nothing damaging about VOY's original premise, it was just that back in 1995 Paramount was in full "Cash Cow" mode and wasn't willing to do anything outside the box with their cow. Since the show started out with physical models, they didn't want to spend money on changing the models constantly, nor changing the interior sets constantly. By the time it got to CGI they still didn't care because it would've been too expensive to change the CGI as well. NuBSG got around this by not ever changing their interior sets and always having them look dirty and trashed, since it was an old ship to begin with.

The crews? They didn't want to leave the TNG formula where people got along.

The best way of getting the show to work? Don't make it a network show, for one, Trek NEVER works as a network show. It needs to be syndicated and the Producers/Writers the ones in charge.

Also, they should have waited until after DS9 was done (which is what Berman wanted). That way they can focus all their talent on one show and get people from DS9 onboard from the start to help out. Also, by then it would've been 2000 so CGI would be used from the start and it would've been cheaper by then.

And, shows like Farscape and LEXX would've been on the air by then too so Paramount would be more willing to see them and think "Okay, we need a counter to these, so we'll let you do your own show where the crew don't all agree."

It was a case of bad timing, a bad network, and spreading talent too thin.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with Pressman is that he was too close to the machine.

I was going to say that his problem is that he doesn't want peace but victory...he's not a live-and-let-live kind of guy but rather a my-way-or-the-highway. But I don't think you get that high up without being more sophisticated than that - than your success being about just perseverance...Mr. Smith went to Washington and filibustered his throat dry, but it was the repentance of another that triumphed his cause.

At that at that level you can't survive without having more respect for the abilities of your enemy, regardless of how evil you think they are...the Nazi's were evil but it was their strength made victory over them costly, and we would not have pursued it had they not provoked us.

Nor does one achieve and maintain Pressman's rank without being more malleable to the ebbs and flows of life. He may have let the bear get him that day, as Riker would say...he may have made peace...sometimes you let things go so you can fight other fights, and if you're lucky enough, get another crack at enemies that happened to best you before.

So, I don't think Pressman, an admiral of the United Federation of Planets, would have held firm to getting a technological advantage over the Romulans if it meant a) a war of that magnitude, and b) a fundamental shift in Federation values and foreign policy...he may as well have been Palpatine suggesting the Feds reorganize into a Galactic Empire since they momentarily (in the greater sweep of history) had a major tactical advantage.

But I think that with the phase-cloak, Pressman couldn't let the machine go. He had achieved something so inventive, and he had invested so much of himself into it, that he'd lost...

Nope, I take it back. It isn't that the phase-cloak was his baby and he couldn't let go. Earlier in life, he grudgingly civilized himself to get to where he eventually got, but with the phase-cloak, power unlike anything most mortal men could imagine was at his fingertips, and the inner beast tipped the scales.

As I write and reread what I wrote I'm realizing it's been too long since I saw the episode and don't know what Pressman's deal was. I remember two things for certain 1) he was a dick, and 2) thinking the writers went too far with the phase-cloak. It was too advanced. How'd the Feds create it so long ago, and none of the baddies do so since? And if they kept it, it would really change Star Trek forever. And I almost wouldn't mind so one-sided a war with the Romulans.

But for them not to (unless they're total hippie Luddites, of which they're often accused though I don't believe) it must not have been as fundamentally game-changing a device. Heck, I'd have given the Romulans a copy if we could also use it for its peacetime uses.

I imagine that if the Feds kept it, there would be war and the Romulans would Manhattan Project some rudimentary wormhole device of their own to even the scales and there'd be too much senseless destruction.

Written too much. Shutting up now. What do you think?
 
why did it matter if the Federation had a tactical disadvantage?

The Romulans benefit, but the Federation was at peace due to it.

Knowing how Federation foreign policy is conducted, the treaty was probably designed to have this disadvantage in it.
 
The Romulans having the cloak isn't even the major advantage it seemed anyways, it's been repeatedly shown that they can be seen through or detected and even worse you can't use shields when cloak is up. The Feds don't have the cloak, so what? They do have sensor tech constantly advancing to the point that they can see cloaked ships and blast them apart more easily since they don't have shields up.
 
I think entire affair with the Dominion made cloaking technology obsolete anyhow.

The Dominion can use technology to detect a cloaked vessel. Sisko even showed the Cardassians how to do so in Defiant. The key for the Romulans now is to invent a superior cloaking technology or give it up. The same applies to the Klingons also. Even though the Federation is their biggest ally, should the treaty ever be broken again there is nothing stopping the Federation from using Dominion technology and being able to penetrate Klingon cloaks.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top