Ron Moore's Voyager
- Thread starter Cheewiee
- Start date
Argh! I clicked the spoiler not recognizing it was about Battlestar Galactica. I haven't seen the fourth season yet and only read the first sentence of your spoiler. I hope that wasn't the whole end of the series that was spoiled for me there.Unless when they got back to AQ, it turned outGod did it. But, hey, at least God's an actual character in Star Trek, with an established history and motivation. And the quickest way to the AQ is through the Galactic Barrier after all.
Also, has it been long enough that I can quit putting spoiler tags on BSG's finale? Does anyone who cares not know what happened yet?
EDIT: Yeah, please continue to use the spoiler code. Where I live the last season has not yet been broadcast on television.
Crap, sorry. I thought it was clear from the context it was BSG's Daybreak. Er, hey, for what it's worth, a lot of people really enjoyed it.
Yeah, I did the same thing NCC-1701 did. My problem, though, is that I just started watching it as the final episodes were airing - I only made it to the end of the first season when the finale aired, and I'm watching the series with my aunt. At least now we're almost ready to start the third season. Maybe by the time the last episodes are on DVD we'll be ready to watch them.
No worries. Let's hope I'll forget what I read before I finally see the finale.
To be honest, I hadn't read yet that Daybreak was the title of the finale.
Argh! I clicked the spoiler not recognizing it was about Battlestar Galactica. I haven't seen the fourth season yet and only read the first sentence of your spoiler. I hope that wasn't the whole end of the series that was spoiled for me there.Unless when they got back to AQ, it turned outGod did it. But, hey, at least God's an actual character in Star Trek, with an established history and motivation. And the quickest way to the AQ is through the Galactic Barrier after all.
Also, has it been long enough that I can quit putting spoiler tags on BSG's finale? Does anyone who cares not know what happened yet?
EDIT: Yeah, please continue to use the spoiler code. Where I live the last season has not yet been broadcast on television.
Keep watching, the supposed "spoiler" above wasn't really much of one, in terms of where the series goes and ends up. Also, I'd recommend you at least familiarize yourself with the titles of S4 episodes to avoid future incidents (the titles are not very indicative of what actually happens in the episode, as you probably know).
All this talk about Chakotay being opposed to Janeway is ignoring a part of his backstory: he wasn't a traitor. Unlike most other Fleeters-turned-Maquis Chakotay officially resigned his post and THEN he joined the Maquis, he wasn't a traitor like Eddington and he didn't betray his pre-existing post or steal weapons/plans or stuff. If anything, he'd be one of the first to realize the crews had to work together to survive.
If there was to be any major conflict, it would've been between him and his fellow Maquis who would see him as a sell-out for accepting Janeway so fast.
As for "good drama", I don't see how getting everyone killed within a month is good drama. It's just stupidity.
As for "lack of continuity", serialization does not equal continuity. You don't need to have every single episode be continuously linked to the previous one to tell good stories, in fact that would have just made the show unaccessible which was the opposite of what UPN and Paramount wanted (to make up for the money they lost on DS9 due to it's serialization).
If there was to be any major conflict, it would've been between him and his fellow Maquis who would see him as a sell-out for accepting Janeway so fast.
As for "good drama", I don't see how getting everyone killed within a month is good drama. It's just stupidity.
As for "lack of continuity", serialization does not equal continuity. You don't need to have every single episode be continuously linked to the previous one to tell good stories, in fact that would have just made the show unaccessible which was the opposite of what UPN and Paramount wanted (to make up for the money they lost on DS9 due to it's serialization).
Amen. Thanks for the great example.
In my earlier post "evolved" was in no way meant to mean "perfect" so I'm glad you cleared that up. I like the example of Kirk and the Gorn because in today's terms it would be "Well he attacked him so Kirk would have every right to take him out" vs "He attacked me with the intent to kill but I'm strong enough to make the choice not to retaliate". That's evolved!
Contrast that with BSG where the characters who do what they think is right even when they can justify doing otherwise (Helo and the opportunity to kill all cylons with the virus, etc) are more the exception than the norm.
Again, I love both shows for what they are but I wouldn't want Trek to turn into BSG nor for BSG to turn into Trek. They both have a place.
Yup, I will definitely keep on watching Battlestar Galactica! In my opinion it's easily one of the best series I have ever seen (it's right up there with The Twilight Zone, Deep Space Nine, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Seinfeld, Frasier and Homicide: Life on the Streets). Oh, and thanks for the clarification about the spoiler. That's reassuring, actually.
Where do you get the getting everyone killed bit from? Of course that'd be stupid! And as far as I can tell you are actually the one constantly bringing it up. No-one said they'd have to do that in order to have good drama.
Fair enough.
Conflict != mass murder.
Conflict means arguments, shouting matches, or even just snarky comments. Nobody in this thread has said that they wanted the whole crew to be killed off, stop making the claim.
I disagree. It wouldn't have to be everyone dead in 3 months, rather the constant tension that that might happen would keep the show compelling. The occasional spilling over of conflict resulting in death would indeed have been great.
Conflict is what all drama is supposed to be based on. Without conflict, there can be no drama. Therefore, watching a drama with no conflict, like Voyager, is boring and uninteresting and very bad form on the writers' part in terms of storytelling. Even the TOS writers in the 1960's understood this, and hence they infused TOS with conflict o'plenty.
It is stupid to have "Maquis that are not Maquis". Would have made far more sense to just have a 100% Starfleet crew since that for all intents and purposes, what they had anyways. But even then, it still wouldn't be a good excuse for the showrunners trying to make a drama with no conflict.
Not sure what the comparison Lost In Space has to do with it. I don't care if non-Trek shows from the 1960's had no story or character development. But for a modern Trek show to come after DS9, which had excellent story and character development, to not have likewise, is inexcusable IMO.
I'm sorry, but if the VOY characters were incapable of cooperating and realizing that wanting to kill each other wasn't a good idea after a few months of being stuck together, they WOULD all be dead in short order. That's not "good drama", it's just stupidity.
TOS drew plenty of conflict from external sources or external causes, and most of the time whenever there was really conflict it did involve one-shot characters who weren't part of the show beyond that, aside from Spock's hypocritical blathering on about the evils of humanity and McCoyu's racist blatherings about Vulcans and their blood. Even DS9 didn't have a whole ton of true conflict between the characters themselves, a lot of it came from external sources than the characters' own personalities.
If they wanted the crew to be at each others' throats the way you wanted them to be, they should have made the other crew a Cardassian or Romulan vessel. Those guys had real reasons to be conflicted with Fleeters, unlike the Maquis.
And again, DS9 is put on some untouchable pedestal despite it being far from perfect. And more predictable the rising of DS9 comes from Navaros.
TOS drew plenty of conflict from external sources or external causes, and most of the time whenever there was really conflict it did involve one-shot characters who weren't part of the show beyond that, aside from Spock's hypocritical blathering on about the evils of humanity and McCoyu's racist blatherings about Vulcans and their blood. Even DS9 didn't have a whole ton of true conflict between the characters themselves, a lot of it came from external sources than the characters' own personalities.
If they wanted the crew to be at each others' throats the way you wanted them to be, they should have made the other crew a Cardassian or Romulan vessel. Those guys had real reasons to be conflicted with Fleeters, unlike the Maquis.
And again, DS9 is put on some untouchable pedestal despite it being far from perfect. And more predictable the rising of DS9 comes from Navaros.
I think that Ron Moore would have created a better show, but not necessarily for all the the reasons given.
The thing that Moore had that Berman lacked was vision. He had a vision of what he would have wanted to see on the show and would have found a way to make it happen. What Voyager really lacked was good leadership on the production side of things. They had a leaader that simply went along with UPN's directives rather than actively challenging and fighting for the creative integrity of the series.
Ira S. Behr said that he also came under pressure from Berman and the folks at Paramount. The difference was that Behr was willing to fight for creative control. If you've ever seen any of his interviews on DS9, you know that TPTB kept telling him to stay away from the "S" word. His response was to say ok, and then go ahead and do it anyway. He would find ways to link the shows together even if was not apparently so. THAT is what someone with a vision does.
GR was the same way on TOS. NBC would say not to do something, he would try and find a way around it and do things his way.
Berman did not have that kind of creative backbone. He'd make a creative suggestion, UPN would say no, and he would YES SIR and slink away. Add to that the fact that Jeri Taylor seemed hell bent on sucking any creativity out of the show and you end up with the mediocre show that was ultimately televised.
The reality is that TV network executives NEVER know what makes for good TV. Its usually up to the show runners/producers to fight the good fight and hold back their interference. Berman was not that guy.
Berman, Braga and Taylor, collectively were the reason that Voyager was so lack lustre. None of them had a real vision for the show (accept maybe Taylor who just wanted more TNG). Thus having someone more committed the the original premise might have produced a more interesting show.
The thing that Moore had that Berman lacked was vision. He had a vision of what he would have wanted to see on the show and would have found a way to make it happen. What Voyager really lacked was good leadership on the production side of things. They had a leaader that simply went along with UPN's directives rather than actively challenging and fighting for the creative integrity of the series.
Ira S. Behr said that he also came under pressure from Berman and the folks at Paramount. The difference was that Behr was willing to fight for creative control. If you've ever seen any of his interviews on DS9, you know that TPTB kept telling him to stay away from the "S" word. His response was to say ok, and then go ahead and do it anyway. He would find ways to link the shows together even if was not apparently so. THAT is what someone with a vision does.
GR was the same way on TOS. NBC would say not to do something, he would try and find a way around it and do things his way.
Berman did not have that kind of creative backbone. He'd make a creative suggestion, UPN would say no, and he would YES SIR and slink away. Add to that the fact that Jeri Taylor seemed hell bent on sucking any creativity out of the show and you end up with the mediocre show that was ultimately televised.
The reality is that TV network executives NEVER know what makes for good TV. Its usually up to the show runners/producers to fight the good fight and hold back their interference. Berman was not that guy.
Berman, Braga and Taylor, collectively were the reason that Voyager was so lack lustre. None of them had a real vision for the show (accept maybe Taylor who just wanted more TNG). Thus having someone more committed the the original premise might have produced a more interesting show.
Well, while I do agree with you to an extent I have to say a few things:
1) Braga wasn't a producer until S4, and his plan (and season long Year of Hell) would have turned it around if not for UPN's direct interference. So he did have some vision at least.
2) DS9 was a syndicated show, not a network show. They did have more freedom and more ability to defy Paramount than VOY did. If they HAD tried with defying UPN they'd just get themselves fired and possibly blacklisted, and their attempts would be cancelled out regardless.
Eother VOY should also have been syndicated, or on a better network like NuBSG had in Sci-Fi.
1) Braga wasn't a producer until S4, and his plan (and season long Year of Hell) would have turned it around if not for UPN's direct interference. So he did have some vision at least.
2) DS9 was a syndicated show, not a network show. They did have more freedom and more ability to defy Paramount than VOY did. If they HAD tried with defying UPN they'd just get themselves fired and possibly blacklisted, and their attempts would be cancelled out regardless.
Eother VOY should also have been syndicated, or on a better network like NuBSG had in Sci-Fi.
^^^I find that excuse lacking. For starters UPN could not fire anyone. That decision would be up to Paramount since they have contracts and Paramount owned the show, not UPN.
More importanly though, every producer on a network show runs into obstacles with network execs. You don't think that JJ Abrams ran into interferrence with Alias or Lost. Of course he did. The same was true with Joss Whedon with Buffy, Angel and Firefly. None of those shows had the legacy of Star Trek and lets face it, since UPN could only cancel Voyager (which they were never going to do), Berman and co could have played a little hardball. Its only when the creators/producersw stand up and fight for creative control over the show that you get quality.
The excuse about UPN is just that, an excuse. If Braga had REALLY wanted to do a year long arc for Year of Hell, he could have found a way to make it happen if he and Berman just thought outside of the box. The problem with those two is that they are not that creative. We can all look back at DS9 and see the arc taking shape in episodes that seem unrelated. Unfortunately, the Xindi arc type story line is the only way that they can grasp how to do a year long arc. Buffy did not always do that, nor did DS9, B5 or the Stargates. It certinly would have been possible to get around UPN by rethinking how they execute the idea.
More importanly though, every producer on a network show runs into obstacles with network execs. You don't think that JJ Abrams ran into interferrence with Alias or Lost. Of course he did. The same was true with Joss Whedon with Buffy, Angel and Firefly. None of those shows had the legacy of Star Trek and lets face it, since UPN could only cancel Voyager (which they were never going to do), Berman and co could have played a little hardball. Its only when the creators/producersw stand up and fight for creative control over the show that you get quality.
The excuse about UPN is just that, an excuse. If Braga had REALLY wanted to do a year long arc for Year of Hell, he could have found a way to make it happen if he and Berman just thought outside of the box. The problem with those two is that they are not that creative. We can all look back at DS9 and see the arc taking shape in episodes that seem unrelated. Unfortunately, the Xindi arc type story line is the only way that they can grasp how to do a year long arc. Buffy did not always do that, nor did DS9, B5 or the Stargates. It certinly would have been possible to get around UPN by rethinking how they execute the idea.
And in the process, get fired and probably blacklisted for not doing as they were told. Way to go, you stuck it to the man for stuff they wouldn't let be on air even after you're gone and cut your nose off in the process of thumbing it at them. B&B are blamed for everything people dislike about Trek because they're easy targets, not because they're really responsible for every last little bad thing.
They'd only wind up getting fired and blacklisted if the show didn't turn out good and consistantly lost viewers - Failure comes down on a select few while success gets spread around to everyone. Take a risk and fail, no one wants to associate with you. Take a risk and succeed, and everyone wants to grab on to your coattails.
Like it was said above, Ira Stephan Behr managed to do what he was told not to by thinking about how to do it without making it obvious. It's writing around your limitations that makes the difference - the network gave the Voyager producers and writers limitations and they said 'yes, sir! Right away, sir!' and followed them, instead of trying to find a way to work in what they wanted with what the studio wanted.
The key difference is that DS9 had no network breathing down their necks and barking orders at them all the time, and by S3 the Paramount suits stopped caring and moved onto VOY meaning they had TWO sets of network meddlers to deal with now. Behr can say what he wants, but the truth is that the DS9 crew just had it easier.
I think this is the crux of the problem right here. Moore has stated in many of his commentaries that he's grateful the sci-fi network gave them as much creative leeway as they did. That doesn't mean Moore and Co. got their way every time but they were definitely able to take more chances.
UPN on the other hand watched Voyager like a hawk. It took until the second season before Mulgrew was even allowed to start playing Janeway her own way. That plus Berman isn't the "creative visionary" of a Moore or Roddenberry means the show took less chances.
Still, the show was blessed with actors who had a great deal of chemistry and did what they could with it. Despite some scripts that just didn't work many of us came to care about what happened to these characters so that says something.
The idea that most of VOY seemed predicated on -- that the Maquis would just give up their organizing philosophies and subscribe to Starfleet's belief systems and become model Starfleet officers -- makes about as much sense as presuming that you could put a bunch of Minutemen and Redcoats from the American Revolution on a ship and expect them to get along. The Maquis are separatists who reject the Federation and wanted to establish their own independent state.
