The Big 3's takeover of GQ

[Crewman6]

...but for the long-term there was too much lazy writing and a lack of vision that plagued DS9, VOY and Enterprise.

You seem to have a very selective memory. All through Star Trek's history, quality has walked hand in hand with crap. There is arguably more bad Star Trek now than good Star Trek given the franchise's vast history and scope. But, honestly, that's almost to be expected.

Star Trek has always been mostly good with lots and lots of terrible. Season 3 of TOS was almost entirely garbage (to say nothing of some terribly cheesy episodes early in its run.) TNG had an appallingly bad first season and a deeply mediocre second season before hitting its stride. But even then, it was far from flawless. Season 5 was fairly weak and Season 7 was mostly awful, as the show was basically running on fumes.

DS9 is easily the strongest and most consistent of any Trek series, but also struggled to find itself in the first season and has its share of stinkers to be sure. VOY was almost all bad and ENT was only nominally better (though I didn't see the last season, where its fans insist it got a lot better.)

There was a running joke for years about how only every other Star Trek movie was good right up until the lousy "Insurrection" was followed by the even more lousy "Nemesis." Even die-hard fans would laugh and shrug and say, "yeah, that's just the way it is."

The reboot movies have been mostly bad. And Discovery is also a mixed bag with mixed reactions.

Look, Star Trek has some amazing stuff in it, some of my favorite filmed entertainment of all time. But it's also very, very fallible and has been written by at this point dozens if not a hundred or more different people over its long lifespan, to say nothing of the directors, actors, studio executives and countless other people that have affected its quality.

I'm not saying we should just throw up our hands and expect "Star Trek" to be bad. But it's not like bad Star Trek is anything new.....

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

lol. My memory is just fine. I'm saying that as a franchise, ST has all the name recognition one could need to draw in the best of the best for writing, casting, CGI, etc. As a genuine fan of DS9, I got so many of my friends to try it out. They were very open-minded about it, but they could not get past Season 1. It moved at a snail's pace and lacked any focus.

My point is that a show or movie ***should not be allowed*** to start filming unless a cohesive story is in place that will be rolled out in a logical way. I know that's probably unrealistic when there are execs who just see an opportunity to make another buck, but when studios are losing money, that should at least trigger some introspection.

Now, because of so many flops and an increasingly cynical fan base, the franchise is arguably more vulnerable than ever, especially when so many new things are being tried elsewhere in film, TV and streaming services, and Star Trek could become synonymous with what sci-fi should not be.

ST Discovery gives me hope. I'm a fan. It has its flaws, but I think it's a labor of love by everyone who makes it, not just another attempt to use the ST name to make a buck.

Nowadays, it simply doesn't fly to expect mostly crap - and a little good here 'n there. When TOS came on the scene, the competition was a fraction of what it is today. People have plenty of other options (and that's not a bad thing). But if we had higher standards in the early 2000s, maybe ST wouldn't have collapsed so spectacularly.

 

[kkt]

My point is that a show or movie ***should not be allowed*** to start filming unless a cohesive story is in place that will be rolled out in a logical way. I know that's probably unrealistic when there are execs who just see an opportunity to make another buck, but when studios are losing money, that should at least trigger some introspection.

I don't think that would be practical. That would not allow a show to respond by featuring more of a popular character, or less of an unpopular character, or play off of current events, or availability or nonavailability of actors or shooting locations. I guess Babylon 5 to some extent was planned out, but I can't think of any other series that were. It would require the series to have a beginning, middle, and end, but you usually don't know how many seasons a show is going to run until it's done. It sounds more like making a miniseries or a series of movies, maybe like the Lord of the Rings films.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

I agree - it's not realistic, and a degree of flexibility is required. But I'm not thinking of an A-to-Z scenario where it's planned from premiere to finale. I'm thinking of a basic storyboard that makes a way for having recurring characters, recurring species, and a direction for it to go in. Instead, Season 1 was a mess moving in slow motion with the species-of-the-week phenomenon as the norm, based on whatever species wandered in through the wormhole. There was no cohesion, no direction. The characters were good, the acting was good, so it survived into Season 2 where the writers finally started to get their act together, but I don't think it would've gotten past season 1 if it were aired today.

There's already so much pressure around DSC, people act like every new episode is make-or-break for the show's continuation or cancellation. In the '90s and early 2000s, ST was able to get by with that ratio of "mostly bad, a few good episodes" for awhile, but it ultimately caught up with them, and the audience didn't have an appetite for any more of it. So I continue to make my plea for character development, species development, and real effort for storyboards that are creative and cohesive when filming begins, even if things have to be tweaked later on. It doesn't have to be A-Z, but even A-B would be nice.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Let's take a quick poll. For the people here who say the Big 3 are enough for them, please answer the following:

- How many of the Founders, besides Odo, would you say you really go to know as recurring in-depth characters?
My answer: ONE
- How many of the Vorta would you say you really got to know as recurring in-depth characters?
My answer: ONE
- How many of the Jem-Hadar would you say you really got to know as recurring in-depth characters?
- My answer: ZERO

So even as we talk about the Big 3 species, I can't even name off 3 individuals from those species who were developed as in-depth characters with background stories or anything. Perhaps you can do better. I'm eager to see the tally each of you come up with.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

My point is that a show or movie ***should not be allowed*** to start filming unless a cohesive story is in place that will be rolled out in a logical way. I know that's probably unrealistic when there are execs who just see an opportunity to make another buck, but when studios are losing money, that should at least trigger some introspection.

You've effectively pushed back the filming of TNG two-three years, until Michael Piller comes on board. Good job!

 

[Bad Thoughts]

BTW, how many deeply-drawn recurring characters did "exploring" produce in TNG? The answer is likely zero: Q and the Borg were products of a being wanting to screw with humans, and Ro was already part of Starfleet.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

You've effectively pushed back the filming of TNG two-three years, until Michael Piller comes on board. Good job!

Attitude not necessary. And ignoring the poll, but proving my point. Thank you.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

haha Yes, I guess that is a bit much to ask. I suppose there's an overall frustration that the Trek universe doesn't have to stay so insulated in terms of its fan base, but the writing depth is so inconsistent to be able to expand the base. We were chatting in a Voyager forum about how excellently 1 episode would be (well planned, well executed), only to be followed by 5 episodes that seemed lazily slapped together. The quality of the work was all over the place.

And I know it's probably not worth bringing up ST movies like "Into Darkness," but pretty much every minute, I was spotting plot holes that had nothing to do with canon, just common sense stuff that was meant to be covered over by the action. I mention "Into Darkness" because those 3 films were an opportunity to expand the fan base in a very public & blockbuster way, but it fizzled out for obvious reasons. Now it's an uphill battle again.

If people want to see ST continue to take off with new adventures and new ideas, the fan base has to be expanded. Studios will not throw money at something that doesn't have broad appeal, and looking back on dead-end plotlines amidst the dramatic decline of ST in the early 2000s, one has to do some dissection. Soooooo much was done RIGHT and excellently, and I honestly loved DS9, but for the long-term there was too much lazy writing and a lack of vision that plagued DS9, VOY and Enterprise.

Excuse me, but Into Darkness did not fizzle out; it explored a current topic (terrorism, responses to terrorism, and the blow back that results) in a futuristic setting, just like Star Trek: TOS always did on TV (and did it in a better way than the previous shows that did so, in particular TNG with that shitty first season episode 'The High Ground', IMHO.) That's all anybody could/should expect from a Star Trek story, and if that's a failure according to you, I'd hate to see what a success is.

Beyond was also the same regarding its themes-exploration, being able to see past war [which Krall couldn't do], having a birthday and getting older and feeling bored in your chosen profession [Kirk], wondering if you should quit exploration and accept a promotion [Kirk again] and having relationship problems [Spock & Uhura]-all of those were there, yet you and other fans like you felt that it wasn't enough and there was too much action in both movies.

As the saying goes, there is just no pleasing of some people.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Excuse me, but Into Darkness did not fizzle out; it explored a current topic (terrorism, responses to terrorism, and the blow back that results) in a futuristic setting, just like Star Trek: TOS always did on TV (and did it in a better way than the previous shows that did so, in particular TNG with that shitty first season episode 'The High Ground', IMHO.) That's all anybody could/should expect from a Star Trek story, and if that's a failure according to you, I'd hate to see what a success is.

Beyond was also the same regarding its themes-exploration, being able to see past war [which Krall couldn't do], having a birthday and getting older and feeling bored in your chosen profession [Kirk], wondering if you should quit exploration and accept a promotion [Kirk again] and having relationship problems [Spock & Uhura]-all of those were there, yet you and other fans like you felt that it wasn't enough and there was too much action in both movies.

As the saying goes, there is just no pleasing of some people.

Wow, people are very sensitive on here. I guess we could have that discussion in one of the movie forums. The problems have nothing to do with the action, and everything to do with the gigantic plot holes. The themes themselves are not at issue (for me anyway). But there are plot holes big enough you could drive a starship through them.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Attitude not necessary. And ignoring the poll, but proving my point. Thank you.

Not really. The first two seasons, despite quality, still provided important building blocks for future seasons.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Not really. The first two seasons, despite quality, still provided important building blocks for future seasons.

Right, such a names, who's who, etc. But a huge number of "building blocks" were swept under the rug like they never happened, because they were simply silly, illogical or didn't fit with a coherent plotline that they were putting together later. Let's put it this way: the TNG cast itself didn't think the show would make it past season 1. Denise Crosby was "miserable," and it's a miracle that more actors didn't follow her exit. But when everything was said & done, it became a pretty great show.

Is it truly that outlandish & unreasonable to ask that writers have a coherent plotline in-place before filming? Is that crazy talk? If I asked you for $20 million for an idea that was built mostly around name recognition, would you give me that $20 million? Again, I'm not asking for something that's A-to-Z, premiere-to-finale, but just something that has direction to get traction going early on.

If people applied the same standards to TNG or DS9 that are being applied to DSC right now, then TNG and DS9 never would've made it to a 2nd season. Both shows eventually found their footing, but the market is more unforgiving than ever, and mistakes need to be learned from.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

But a huge number of "building blocks" were swept under the rug like they never happened, because they were simply silly, illogical or didn't fit with a coherent
plotline that they were putting together later.

So what? If they did not work, move on. If they were that compelling, there would be something to salvage.

Let's put it this way: the TNG cast itself didn't think the show would make it past season 1. Denise Crosby was "miserable," and it's a miracle that more actors didn't follow her exit. But when everything was said & done, it became a pretty great show.

The cast is not really a relevant metric. They thought it would not last long because it was too much of a genre show. They were not entirely clued into what was happening with the writing staff (and Roddenberry and, later, Berman endeavored to keep them separate).
​

s it truly that outlandish & unreasonable to ask that writers have a coherent plotline in-place before filming? Is that crazy talk? If I asked you for $20 million for an idea that was built mostly around name recognition, would you give me that $20 million? Again, I'm not asking for something that's A-to-Z, premiere-to-finale, but just something that has direction to get traction going early on.

Is it outlandish to expect people to work and live by the values of a different era?

If people applied the same standards to TNG or DS9 that are being applied to DSC right now, then TNG and DS9 never would've made it to a 2nd season. Both shows eventually found their footing, but the market is more unforgiving than ever, and mistakes need to be learned from.

Discovery must compete in the current media environment. TNG and DS9 competed in their own. Having a tightly written narrative hasn't entirely won over a huge audience and has garnered vociferous criticism, whether deserved or not, so I am not sure why series produced thirty years ago should have conformed to Discovery's standard.

 

[StarMan]

Let's take a quick poll. For the people here who say the Big 3 are enough for them, please answer the following:

- How many of the Founders, besides Odo, would you say you really go to know as recurring in-depth characters?
My answer: ONE
- How many of the Vorta would you say you really got to know as recurring in-depth characters?
My answer: ONE
- How many of the Jem-Hadar would you say you really got to know as recurring in-depth characters?
- My answer: ZERO

So even as we talk about the Big 3 species, I can't even name off 3 individuals from those species who were developed as in-depth characters with background stories or anything. Perhaps you can do better. I'm eager to see the tally each of you come up with.

I've never really thought about it in these terms, to be honest! So far as The Founders ... I the Female Changeling sufficed. The drop becomes the ocean and the ocean becomes the drop... which basically means she effectively represented the entirety of The Great Link.

I could've done with a couple more Vorta for Weyoun and Dukat to play off. It seems unlikely that Weyoun in his administrative role on Terok Nor would be the only Vorta kicking around. Additionally, The Vorta were the one race within The Dominion that had the most potential for individual character development, unlike the monolithic Jem Hadar and Founders.

 

[Farscape One]

But Jeffrey Combs was the best at being a Vorta, which was why the producers came up with the cloning scenario for them just so they can bring him back.

The other Vorta we saw were not as effective, which might be in-universe the reason why Weyoun was the top Vorta, and why the Female Changeling had a soft spot for him.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

I've never really thought about it in these terms, to be honest! So far as The Founders ... I the Female Changeling sufficed. The drop becomes the ocean and the ocean becomes the drop... which basically means she effectively represented the entirety of The Great Link.

I could've done with a couple more Vorta for Weyoun and Dukat to play off. It seems unlikely that Weyoun in his administrative role on Terok Nor would be the only Vorta kicking around. Additionally, The Vorta were the one race within The Dominion that had the most potential for individual character development, unlike the monolithic Jem Hadar and Founders.

Thank you for adding in. I think it still does add to the 1-dimensional feel of the species, that a person only has to get to know *one* of the characters, and that's good enough, even though the Dominion played a critical role in the majority of the series. I think the same phenomenon could've been observed when we first met the Bajorans or the Cardassians in TNG when we were first introduced to them, but then some effort was made to develop them more. Getting to know more than 1 character suddenly opened up an entirely new world, providing us with this show.

Even among the Jem-Hadar, there was potential, as some wanted to live without the Ketracel-white and take a different path. The Founders had sent out others of their kind to different parts of the galaxy like Odo, what happened to them, and what influence did they have on the Great Link? What was the Vorta's homeworld like? What about their abilities that we briefly saw displayed? Was there any organized resistance to the Dominion in the GQ? Had the Prophets ever interacted with any GQ species who had their own separate faith tied to them?

Instead, we had a war that dragged on longer than it should have, and character development in general was put on hold. In TNG, I would agree that it sufficed to get to know one character from a species if it was the "species-of-the-week." But the Dominion's Big 3 were not species-of-the-week. They were a huge part of DS9 for the majority of the series' run. If more effort could've been made, we could've gone beyond the dead end we found at the end of DS9, but the wormhole was metaphorically closed forever.

It is not crazy-talk, folks, to ask for a cohesive storyline with character/species development. Star Trek Discovery is risky in its approach, but it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a cohesive storyline can be put together before filming. Granted, it doesn't have to be done exactly the way they're doing it, but it is infinitely better than pitching some name recognition and muddling through, figuring it out as you go, losing a critical chunk of the audience along the way. Given how many people still can't get past season 1 of DS9 on when it's watched on Netflix, it still holds true.

 

[StarMan]

But Jeffrey Combs was the best at being a Vorta, which was why the producers came up with the cloning scenario for them just so they can bring him back.

The other Vorta we saw were not as effective, which might be in-universe the reason why Weyoun was the top Vorta, and why the Female Changeling had a soft spot for him.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Combs was sublime as Weyoun. He really came into the character at the start of S6.

 

[MAGolding]

Did the Dominion rule all of the Gamma Quadrant, but none of the Alpha, Beta, or Delta Quadrants?

No, because a realm that expands through space until it meets obstacles it can't expand through can never take the shape of galactic quadrant, because the lines between galactic quadrants are not impassable real lines but arbitrary lines imagined by people living far away.

And if anyone is not convinced, read on.

An interstellar civilization or government will expand outwards in all directions. Thus its shape will resemble an expanding sphere, until it expands to fill up the entire thickness of the galactic disc.

The galactic disc is like a pancake or a very flat cylinder, being about 100,000 light years in diameter and about 1,000 light years thick in the "vertical" dimension. The stars thin out more and more at distances more than 500 light years "above" or "Below" the central plane of the galactic disc. So as a space travelling society expends farther and farther "above" or "below" the galactic disc new star systems will be father and farther away on average until it no longer makes any sense to expand to them. Thus an expanding government will stop expanding "up" or "down" from the galactic disc when it had a thickness of only a few thousand light year and then will continue expanding outwards within that thickness, spreading out like a pancake or flat disc.

So if you draw a map showing the galactic disc of the Star Trek galaxy from "above" or "below" and draw the borders of the galactic disc as a circle with a radius of 50,000 light years around the galactic center, the next step is to draw two lines that intersect at the center at right angles. The top left corner is the Gamma Quadrant, the top right corner is the Gamma Quadrant, the bottom right corner is the Beta Quadrant, and the bottom left corner is the Alpha Quadrant, according to the typical map of the Star Trek galaxy.

And if you draw the borders of an expanding space government over time on your galactic map it will show a dot where the government originated and concentric circles around it, the innermost circle being after X years of expansion, the next circle being after 2X years of expansion, the third circle after 3X years of expansion, and so on.

So how big would the circle representing an expanding space realm be if it was the largest size that could fit inside one of the quadrants without spilling over into one, two, or three of the other quadrants? A flat quadrant on a plane is an oversimplification in a galactic map, but the galactic disc is about 50 to 100 times as wide as it is thick so that is a far approximation.

Any flat quadrant of a circle will have a quarter of the surface area of that circle. The radius of a circle is Pi times the radius squared. Approximating Pi as 3.14159 and the radius of the galactic disc as 50,000 light years , the surface area of the galactic disc would be about 7,853,975,000 square light years, so the surface area of one of the quadrants would be 1,963,493,700 square light years.

So imagine drawing the circle of an expanding space realm in the center of a quadrant, along from the center of the galaxy to the galaxy's edge, in the middle of the quadrant at a 45 degree angle to the quadrant border lines. Put the center of an expanding realm halfway from the center of the galaxy to the galactic edge.

Give the circle of the expanding realm a radius of 25,000 light years so it reaches for 50,000 light years from the edge of the galaxy to the center point of the galaxy. That circle should have a surface area of 1,963,493,700 cubic light years, the same as the quadrant of the galaxy. But if you put that expanding realm in the center of the Gamma Quadrant it will spill over into the Alpha and Delta Quadrants, and it will not cover all of the Gamma Quadrant.

You can experiment all you want, but you cannot fit an galactic realm expanding until it meets obstacles into a quadrant shape without either spilling into other quadrants or else leaving part of the quadrant uncovered, and in many cases doing both. The quadrant lines imagined by people tens of thousands of light years away aren't force field barriers which prevent expansion.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

We were having a discussion in a DSC thread about ST borders vs. the real-world expanse of the galaxy, that realistically all of the major powers of the Alpha Quadrant combined would've controlled only a small part of it, that there was PLENTY of AQ still to go around before becoming dependent on merging another part of the galaxy into the narrative just to make a formidable enemy. (The discussion thread was called "Distance as gimmick.") The bigness of the galaxy is not fully appreciated. I appreciate your insights.

 

[f14peter]

Sigh ... thinking of all those bumpy-forehead-of-the-week alien species we missed out on makes me sad.