Which producer/writer is disliked/
- Thread starter PhoenixIreland
- Start date
Oh yeah? Just exactly how involved was he in creating TOS?
What does this have to do with anything?
And we have t-shirts!oh great,
another RDM bootlicker ...waiting for the rest of the wolf pack to arrive
Still waiting for mine.And we have t-shirts!oh great,
another RDM bootlicker ...waiting for the rest of the wolf pack to arrive
He didn't create Star Trek.
He's ripping it off for a quick buck.
He didn't create Star Trek.
He's ripping it off for a quick buck.
Wow.
That can apply to EVERYONE who worked on Trek post-Roddenberry, including Bennett, Berman, Piller, Taylor, Braga, Moore, Biller, Sussman, Coto, etc. Not to mention all the TrekLit writers since the 1970s.
More thoughts: Are you saying, as a Trek fan, that if Paramount said "Hey, we will let you do whatever you want if you work for us, you wouldn't say 'I wanna do Star Trek'?" Forgive me if I don't believe that.
Last edited:
He didn't create Star Trek.
He's ripping it off for a quick buck.
Wow.
That can apply to EVERYONE who worked on Trek post-Roddenberry, including Bennett, Berman, Piller, Taylor, Braga, Moore, Biller, Sussman, Coto, etc. Not to mention all the TrekLit writers since the 1970s.
More thoughts: Are you saying, as a Trek fan, that if Paramount said "Hey, we will let you do whatever you want if you work for us, you wouldn't say 'I wanna do Star Trek'?" Forgive me if I don't believe that.
Abrams' isn't doing Trek. He's something with the Star Trek name attached to it but it's in his own fucked up image. I don't even believe Abrams and co are the fans they say they are. They'll say anything to get more asses in the seats to see this crap. Some of the what Orci said at GrandSlam, that was reported at Trekmovie.com, came across as sucking up to me.
Last edited:
Robert Wise didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image.
Nicholas Meyer didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image.
Leonard Nimoy didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image.
William Shatner didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image. (Well, we may be onto something there...)
David Carson didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image.
Jonathan Frakes didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image.
Stuart Baird didn't do Trek. He did something with the Star Trek name attached to it but in his own fucked up image.
Isn't this FUN!?!?!?!? C'mon, let's all play!!!
You know, even if that movie is horrible I am going to see it and love it because it is combining the two sexiest things in the world into one character: Sylar (I know it's Zachary Quinto (sp), but he will always be Sylar to me) and Spock.
I'm already stoked.
I think as long as they keep Rodenberry's Humanist intentions going, it can be said to be a success, no?
I'm already stoked.
I think as long as they keep Rodenberry's Humanist intentions going, it can be said to be a success, no?
Considering TOS (and GR) liberally ripped off the film Forbidden Planet; and the science fiction kids shows of the era (Captain Video et al.) - it could be argued teh original Star Trek itself was in fact, not all that original itself.
Trying to stay on topic with the OP... I would say that Berman is the person most people speak badly of in reference to Trek. Rick Berman was a producer at Paramount who was hired by the studio to help oversee TNG. He didn't create TNG. Gene Roddenberry was creator and executive producer. Berman's job I think was to keep the show running and look out for Paramount's best interests. Rick Berman is very good at being a producer - he can be a liason to the studio, he can work with schedules and budgets, and deal with all the fine details involved with producing a television series. He wasn't the creative force behind TNG - Roddenberry, then later people like Michael Piller and Jeri Taylor were the ones telling the stories. Berman was the man sitting at the desk approving things and making sure the series was on-track.
Berman and Piller co-created DS9 after Roddenberry's death. Piller oversaw the day-to-day work and was more heavily involved. Later, people like Ira Behr and Ron Moore oversaw the writers room and a lot of the production work. Berman was still the big man sitting behind the desk and had to approve everything, but he wasn't really the showrunner for DS9.
Berman co-created that series with Piller and Jeri Taylor. Initially, Piller and Taylor were running the show day-to-day and leading the writers room. Eventually, both left, and Berman promoted Brannon Braga to oversee the show. I don't know exactly how much input Berman was giving on VOY's creative direction, but he definitely didn't allow for much deviation. Ron Moore gave an interview and was very clear about how controlling Berman was when Moore briefly worked for VOY during season 6. Moore pitched ideas and tried to do creative things and Berman shot him down. UPN was also a factor that Berman dealt with. For the first time since TOS, Star Trek was on network TV. There were more people trying to shove their hands in the cookie jar, making decisions, trying to control the direction of the show to maximize ratings and bring in the young male demographic. Berman's job was to balance the network's demands with the studio's demands and the ideas from the writers. It seems as if, more often then not, Berman caved in to the network. UPN wanted "dumbed down" Trek for the teen boys to watch, and Berman delivered it.
By the time ENT was creative, Berman was deeply involved in the creative process. He co-created this series with Braga. But this time Berman wasn't just a producer - he was also a writer. He and Braga wrote several ENT scripts together. Instead of allowing a talented head writer to lead the creative direction of the series, he was doing it himself. And since ENT was on UPN just like VOY, he had to deal with the same network demands as before, and he continued to give UPN the version of Trek that they wanted.
Berman deserves credit for being a great producer and for keeping Star Trek alive and kicking after Gene Roddenberry's health deteriorated and after his death. But should Berman have been a creative force, heading a writers room? Definitely not.
Either have I,
all I have to go on are the odd official statement on the movie and leaked/spy pics. Some of the info sounds great other time it sounds a bit sucky
but I do know Abrams other productions
Lost - a great tv series, but I started to lose interest when the plot wandered around to much
Alias - a silly fashion show masquerading itself as a spy/thriller
Armageddon - a ridiculous scifi movie but it can be fun if you turn your brain off and chew on the pop-corn
Forever Young - has the odd moment of good drama but overall I think its shit
Cloverfield - entertaining movie but highly over-rated by the fanboys
Well there's really nothing to be said to that, then.
Berman wanted to recapture the glory days of TNG, when Star Trek got its best ratings. So he kept plugging away at the old episodic formula thru VOY and then the first two seasons of ENT. In the third season he finally got the notion that that formula was dead dead dead (which had been obvious to the audience years previously) but by then it was too late to save the sinking ship.
Berman was also in charge of DS9, but for whatever reason (I think it's because DS9 wasn't the UPN flagship, but instead was merely syndicated and therefore flying below Paramount's radar), he left Behr and chums to run the show mostly as they saw fit, and that creative freedom resulted in a series much better than TNG, VOY or ENT ever were.
Braga was associated with Berman, so he gets tarred a lot along with Berman. He got a chance to show what he could do on his own with the Threshold series, which was pretty uninspired and deservedly got cancelled.
My main take on Berman is that he shouldn't be slammed for his lack of creative vision so much as his lack of business acumen. He was the money guy, after all. He should have realized that Star Trek would never return to the glory days of TNG ratings, not because of the show's content or "disloyal fans" (as though fans have an obligation to be loyal), but because of the changing trends in TV as a whole. The entertainment business was balkanizing, with cable, satellite, DVDs, the internet and video games stealing a lot of the traditional audience, particularly among the young male demographic Star Trek has traditionally depended on. Nowadays a big hit show might have 15M viewers - that's a measly five percent of the total US population.
If you want to survive on TV now, you either have to think really really lowest common denomenator - and that means either brainless reality TV or uber-formulaic cop show - or, if you have the ambition to be the least bit different (and all sci fi falls into this category), you have to think about a niche audience. Drive down your costs and find revenue streams other than those frakking Neilsens.
Manny Coto had the right idea in S4 of ENT - cater to a niche audience that actually is interested in finding out about the history of the Eugenics War and how the Klingons got smooth brows (as long as you come up with an explanation that doesn't suck, and Coto actually pulled it off). But by S4, the series was effectively cancelled, and they probably would have had to move it to Vancouver to drive down costs enough to keep going. And anyway, Star Trek didn't fit into the demographic of the CW, so that switchover would have doomed Star Trek in any case.
It's perfectly possible for Star Trek to return to TV. The proliferation of new revenue streams like DVD sets and paid downloads will help sci fi even more than other genres of shows. It's really just a matter of time. Star Trek is temporarily a victim of the dislocation caused by a changeover in TV's business model.
Berman was also in charge of DS9, but for whatever reason (I think it's because DS9 wasn't the UPN flagship, but instead was merely syndicated and therefore flying below Paramount's radar), he left Behr and chums to run the show mostly as they saw fit, and that creative freedom resulted in a series much better than TNG, VOY or ENT ever were.
Braga was associated with Berman, so he gets tarred a lot along with Berman. He got a chance to show what he could do on his own with the Threshold series, which was pretty uninspired and deservedly got cancelled.
My main take on Berman is that he shouldn't be slammed for his lack of creative vision so much as his lack of business acumen. He was the money guy, after all. He should have realized that Star Trek would never return to the glory days of TNG ratings, not because of the show's content or "disloyal fans" (as though fans have an obligation to be loyal), but because of the changing trends in TV as a whole. The entertainment business was balkanizing, with cable, satellite, DVDs, the internet and video games stealing a lot of the traditional audience, particularly among the young male demographic Star Trek has traditionally depended on. Nowadays a big hit show might have 15M viewers - that's a measly five percent of the total US population.
If you want to survive on TV now, you either have to think really really lowest common denomenator - and that means either brainless reality TV or uber-formulaic cop show - or, if you have the ambition to be the least bit different (and all sci fi falls into this category), you have to think about a niche audience. Drive down your costs and find revenue streams other than those frakking Neilsens.
Manny Coto had the right idea in S4 of ENT - cater to a niche audience that actually is interested in finding out about the history of the Eugenics War and how the Klingons got smooth brows (as long as you come up with an explanation that doesn't suck, and Coto actually pulled it off). But by S4, the series was effectively cancelled, and they probably would have had to move it to Vancouver to drive down costs enough to keep going. And anyway, Star Trek didn't fit into the demographic of the CW, so that switchover would have doomed Star Trek in any case.
It's perfectly possible for Star Trek to return to TV. The proliferation of new revenue streams like DVD sets and paid downloads will help sci fi even more than other genres of shows. It's really just a matter of time. Star Trek is temporarily a victim of the dislocation caused by a changeover in TV's business model.
I would have to disagree with that. I found those episodes almost completely unwatchable. In fact, I recall saying at the time that the show was officially out of ideas when they dedicated two hours to Klingon foreheads.
The right idea, imo, would have been to tell good stories and create interesting characters. If you can throw a few bones to the fans in the process, that's great. Because a well written story about the history of the Eugenics War would have appealed to anyone if it was a well written story. Coto's catering to the fans felt more like half-baked fan fiction than professional TV writing to me.
That two-parter was more than just Klingon foreheads. Tht is oversimplifying it. It looked at Reed, managed to weave Section 31 in a believable manner, demonstrated with the launch of the Columbia that Starfleet was expanding and Archer would now have a confidante with Hernandez who could have been a nice recurring character, Phlox had some nice moments.
Well I won't argue with you about ENT lacking in the interesting characters although once in a while Archer and T'Pol had some nice moments. But I do think ENT told some good stories in season three and season four. The Xindi arc didn't rely on fannish elements and the season four arcs while clearly fannish told interesting stories on their own that used effectively pre-existing elements introduced on TOS/TNG/DS9 that serviced the story instead of the other way around.
