The three showrunners
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
^ Eh? 
^ Eh?
Yeah, in fact Braga did such a good job of ensuring that Star Trek didn't take any creative risks and becoming the commercial and critical hit that NuBSG was (at least in it's first few seasons) that the Star Trek franchise stagnated to the point Enterprise got cancelled and hardly anybody cared. And now the entire Star Trek franchise consists of one, maybe two, new rebooted J.J. Abrams sequels, one failing MMORPG computer game, and a handful of books each year. With no new TV series in sight.
But at least that bastard Ronald D. Moore didn't get a chance to make Voyager and Enterprise more serious, yet humorous, realistic, entertaining, thought provoking or socially relevant than they were, you know, all the things that originally made Star Trek good.
^ Leonard Nimoy may have been an alcoholic but Spock certainly wasn't. There isn't a single positive role-model for children in the cast of nuBSG, Star Trek was never like that. It was able to tell stories about the corruptibility of humanity by using guest actors instead.
^ Sure none of the characters in NuBSG were Paragons of humanity, they were instead normal, flawed humans who tried their best to do the right thing. They might not be the best role models for small children to look up to, but they were at least real.
With the exception of DS9, none of the main characters in Star Trek were real characters, they were instead Archetypes. That was fine for TOS because it was the 60's, it was a simpler time back then. TNG got away with it because it was a Star Trek TV series, back when Star Trek was still popular. As TNG progressed, the perfect unrealistic TNG characters did get sort of fleshed out a bit more, but it as very subtle. By V'ger and ENT the whole two dimensional character archetypes were getting quite tiresome. DS9 of course had much better, realistic and relatable characters compared to the other Star Trek archetypes.
With the exception of DS9, none of the main characters in Star Trek were real characters, they were instead Archetypes. That was fine for TOS because it was the 60's, it was a simpler time back then. TNG got away with it because it was a Star Trek TV series, back when Star Trek was still popular. As TNG progressed, the perfect unrealistic TNG characters did get sort of fleshed out a bit more, but it as very subtle. By V'ger and ENT the whole two dimensional character archetypes were getting quite tiresome. DS9 of course had much better, realistic and relatable characters compared to the other Star Trek archetypes.
Oh God, not this BS again. Braga was only a showrunner for 2 seasons of VOY and even then, his ideas were mostly all shot down by UPN. His ideas were actually more in line with NuBSG, and this was way before Moore came on board.
He wouldn't have been able to do any of that even if he was in total control, he's not capable of it.
OMG! Ron Moore was great at developing characters. You want to teach kids to avoid problems and fear, then you go watch Voy and Ent. On DS9 the characters are flawed just like in real life and it makes you feel like, yeah, that's how I feel too. DS9 teaches kids that the world isn't perfect, we aren't perfect, and we can't always get what we want. Furthermore, it explore the aspects of humans that other Trek series shy away from...like that deep, dark, human emotions and nature. It tells a very good story that we don't have to fear them; it's part of us and who we are.
You want to be like those religious nuts, then you watch Voy and Ent... [chuckle]
You want to be like those religious nuts, then you watch Voy and Ent... [chuckle]
"Do the thing you fear most and the death of fear is certain." Mark Twain
Last edited:
DS9 did touch on some of the subjects you mention, but the Starfleet regulars were always portrayed as having the same secular humanist values seen in all the other spinoffs. With a few exceptions (For the Uniform, In the Pale Moonlight) it used guest actors to portray the corruptibility of humans just like the other Trek shows.
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not...
I have to go with Ira Behr. Almost every character on DS9, changed and grew throughout their run on the show, while most of the characters on the other shows (i.e. Riker, Geordi, Troi, Crusher, Chakotay, Kim, Paris, Torres, etc.) remained relatively the same as when they started.
Hell, Nog's character arc alone practically eclipses Picard, Janeway, and Archer.
Hell, Nog's character arc alone practically eclipses Picard, Janeway, and Archer.
Watch the shows again from the beginning. Geordi was sarcastic as hell in the first season, always commenting on everything with a joke, not taking things as seriously as he did later on. Totally different, he grew up and matured. Riker, too, remember Q? "Why so stolid, you were never like this before the beard!" And you don't think Paris and Torres changed? Seriously?
Sure, some of these changes are more subtle or realistic. Huge differences in characters don't necessarily mean something was handled better or more realistically, plus experiences shape the individual, OF COURSE 14 year old Nog changed more than the seasoned captain of the Enterprise in a 7 year span! If he didn't change at all, that would be cause for concern. It's a little strange to use that as a bar for comparison.
But come on, let's not be 100% biased here. I don't even like Voyager and can see how much Paris and Torres changed throughout the series!
Thanks to the person who caught my omission of Maurice Hurley.
For the record: STAR TREK has never had a "showrunner," because the model for carrying out the responsibilities this term implies -- both being head writer, and making every major production decision as a producer -- has never been used on a Trek series. Showrunners are a relatively recent development in the model of television production, and it's anachronistic to try to make TREK fit into its paradigm.
Having said that:
Re: Ronald D. Moore. Moore gave a very long interview about six months after he left VOY; he made it very clear that he did not expect to be taking over. He also made it clear that he felt that he and the other staff writers were shut out of the creative process, that Berman and Braga were not in his view trying to write the best show possible, and that he disagreed in general with their creative choices.
He and Braga have also patched things up between them.
Moore has also given interviews in which he has said that if he were placed in charge of a new TREK series, he would not write it in the same style as GALACTICA. In Moore's view, STAR TREK has to retain certain fundamental creative conceits that he didn't want his GALACTICA to share, but that doesn't mean he wants STAR TREK to become like GALACTICA.
For the record: STAR TREK has never had a "showrunner," because the model for carrying out the responsibilities this term implies -- both being head writer, and making every major production decision as a producer -- has never been used on a Trek series. Showrunners are a relatively recent development in the model of television production, and it's anachronistic to try to make TREK fit into its paradigm.
Having said that:
Re: Ronald D. Moore. Moore gave a very long interview about six months after he left VOY; he made it very clear that he did not expect to be taking over. He also made it clear that he felt that he and the other staff writers were shut out of the creative process, that Berman and Braga were not in his view trying to write the best show possible, and that he disagreed in general with their creative choices.
He and Braga have also patched things up between them.
Moore has also given interviews in which he has said that if he were placed in charge of a new TREK series, he would not write it in the same style as GALACTICA. In Moore's view, STAR TREK has to retain certain fundamental creative conceits that he didn't want his GALACTICA to share, but that doesn't mean he wants STAR TREK to become like GALACTICA.
Yep, that's what I meant.
I don't think anyone can be in total control of Trek ever again. J.J. is in charge now so if he were to make a t.v. show, I assume that his regular writers (brown nosed cronies?) would follow him. Wouldn't you. And it seems J.J. could care less and that he didn't even want to do Trek in the first place. So he turned 150 million into a profit. Is that supposed to be impressive? How much did Inception make? How much did the Star Wars movies make? It seems like good movies are pulling in a billion dollars lately or almost. How much did Avatar make. Who posts on the avatar website?
Why's that?
Is there any particular reason you're calling the writers who often work with J.J. Abrams names? Did they do something to you?
On what basis do you make this claim?
Earning three hundred eighty-five million, six hundred eighty thousand, four hundred forty-six dollars gross and two hundred thirty-five million, six hundred eighty thousand, four hundred forty-six dollars in profit is impressive to any reasonable person.
I'm not reasonable. It could have earned alot more. Heck I would have went to see it if anybody else wrote it.
J.J. said he never expected it to land in his lap and didn't seem very interested in it.
Power, politics, greed. You know the usual suspects will keep anyone from being in total control of it.
J.J. said he never expected it to land in his lap and didn't seem very interested in it.
Power, politics, greed. You know the usual suspects will keep anyone from being in total control of it.
Similar threads
