Exclusive Interview: Ron Moore On Breaking Out of The Box | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive Interview: Ron Moore On Breaking Out of The Box June 12, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: BSG,DS9,Interview,TNG , trackback

Long before co-creating of the critical success Battlestar Galactica Ronald D. Moore cut his chops as writer on Star Trek. Starting with a spec script for Next Generation in 1989, Moore racked up 61 Trek writing credits (2nd only to Brannon Braga), spanning three series and two feature films. In this first part of an extensive exclusive interview with TrekMovie.com, Moore talks about pushing the Trek envelope 90s and suggests how Trek can push it again today.
[AUDIO + Transcript below]

 

LISTEN: Ron Moore TrekMovie.com Interview – Part 1

 

TRANSCRIPT

 

TrekMovie.com: Let’s start by talking about the third season of Star Trek The Next Generation, when you joined the show. Many consider that period to be a pivotal point, when Michael Piller took over as show runner, were the marching to change the show? There was a big change and a lot of big episodes that year and the tone of the show changed. Was that a conscious effort to change the show?

Ron Moore: Yah. I think Michael took that on as his mandate. I don’t know if that was a mandate from Gene [Roddenberry], who was still very much involved in the production at that point. And Rick Berman was on the production side at that time. So it was Gene, Michael and Rick who were running the show at that season. I don’t think there was an order from Gene to change things, I think it was Michael as a writer who wasn’t satisfied with how the show was in the first two seasons and wanted to make it much more about the Enterprise characters and wanted them to have individual stories that mattered. He sort of forced the issue. He made the stories that we were breaking in the room much more about our characters than about the planet-of-the-week type of episode.


The classic "Yesterday’s Enterprise" (co-written by Moore) was part of the change in TNG’s 3rd Season

TrekMovie.com: Piller used to refer to the ‘Roddenberry box’ as in the Gene rules that there is no greed, people are perfect, etc. Did you find the ‘Roddenberry box’ limiting as a writer?

Ron Moore: I think we all did. I think there was a general consensus in the writers room in every season that we always chaffed at the notion that there were no petty jealousies and greed and all that. We railed against that on a daily basis, found ways to get around that, found ways to get through it with varying degrees of success. It was a constant problem that we just sort of gnashed our teeth about. It never made any logical sense or any dramatic sense. It just didn’t feel like it was a logical sense of where the Star Trek universe was going. I was always saying ‘the Original Series was never like this, the Original Series has plenty of problems with humanity, plenty of with jealousies and bickering and even racial prejudices are alive in the 23rd century.’ In "Balance of Terror" Stiles is overtly prejudiced against Spock just because he is Vulcan. And that isn’t the only instance of that. It made for drama and it made for conflict. It made the world work.

So when you tried to take all that out it just made it very difficult to tell stories that had much meaning to them, or any teeth to them, because you had to keep going back and make people much nicer and people couldn’t have true conflict and it made it hard to write the show in any kind of dramatic sense. And we were always bitching and moaning about it. And my personal theory was that Gene sort of started to believe in himself as more of a visionary than a writer at a certain point. He started to believe the stuff that he was creating a utopian future and wanted The Next Generation universe to be reflective of the utopian universe that so many people had told him he had been creating for all these years. So it started to become less about the drama, less about making a television show, and more about servicing this idea of what utopianism was going to be and how perfect humanity was going to be in the future as an example of how to live our lives by, as opposed to making a great television series.

TrekMovie.com: In the DS9 episode "In the Cards" you kind of made a play on this. There is an exchange between Nog and Jake, where Nog says to Jake "it’s not my fault you don’t have any money" and Jake says "we are here to better ourselves" and Nog says "what the hell does that mean." Jake was saying the line from a movie you wrote, First Contact, "we strive to better ourselves" So were you making fun of yourself?

Ron Moore: Oh yah [laughs] None of us knew what that meant. I think Nog’s next line is "what does that mean exactly" and Jake kind of fumbles and says "it means something good" or whatever. It is a strange platitude that we used on the show, the need for money was gone and everything was about bettering yourself. It was no longer about any kind of material gain or personal gain, everyone was just trying to be a better person So none of us could understand what that mean or how that society functioned. It all seemed very vague. None of the writers took it seriously. We all kind of laughed about it and joked about it. We all had to pay homage to it because that was something that was built into the structure of the show. At every opportunity we tried to sneak in ways. How do you play poker if you don’t have currency? Again The Original Series had credits and currency and we never understood why they could do all these great things and we couldn’t. It was very odd.

TrekMovie.com:  Did you feel that with [Deep Space Nine show runner] Ira [Steven Behr] the box was thrown out the door?

Ron Moore: We were all in league together. Ira was a big proponent of throwing the box out the door, but he knew we couldn’t really throw the box out the door. We could only go so far and find creative ways around it. We couldn’t save the Star Trek universe by destroying it. We had to keep things in place because they were the fundamentals that Gene had built in. And so we just found ways around them whenever possible. Like there is no religion in the future at that point, even though the original Star Trek series had a chapel on the ship, by the time he was doing Next Gen he had decided that all major Earth religions by the 24th century and none of us believed that for a heart beat. That just seem preposterous that they would just vanish. 


Lt. Cmdr. Michael Eddington betrays Starfleet (and certainly breaks the ‘lets all get along’ mold) in Moore’s DS9′ episode "For the Cause"

TrekMovie.com: You got big into continuity, which was sort of a new thing in the early 90s for most TV shows–certainly for Star Trek. Was that something that was welcomed or did you sneak it in and no one noticed?

Ron Moore: I remember when we discussed the ending of "Sins of the Father" where the Klingon arc really began–where Worf lost his honor and had to leave the Klingon home world with his honor shredded. I was sitting in Rick’s office with Michael and Rick and it kind of coming up and I said I wanted to leave it on this kind of ambiguous ending so that we can come back again some time and Rick said "OK" and that was really the extent of the discussion. But it really opened the door for doing these larger arcs, but I don’t think it was seen as this major thing or shift in the change in the show. But as we got further in and with Michael’s emphasis on doing more character work inevitably started to push the show in directions that would keep the continuity tighter and almost started mini story arcs going. As you started to develop the relationships among the characters and started to develop them as characters you wanted to continue that into the next story. And you wanted to pick up those thread, writers would start to want to pick up a thread that was established three episodes ago.

And then you started to get into a bit of a battle. You would get into places where you would get notes back about ‘this is too serialized — we don’t do serialized.’ ‘The studio wants to be able to syndicate these in any order they want and you are tying the hands of the local stations if they want to run episodes wildly out of sequence, we can’t put them a position where they have to run them in a particular sequence, so stop doing it.’ But we never really stopped doing it. We just kept sneakily putting in more and more and more and trying to make it more of an arc because it made it more interesting to write. Once you decide it is about the characters it is hard to not to make it more serialized and more about continuity. Because the relationship between Riker and Troi this week, if you change it in the episode and then next week doesn’t seem to reflect what you saw last week it doesn’t make any sense. Whereas plot is much easier to be standalone. The Enterprise pulls up they have a plot with some aliens, they have some crisis, the Enterprise pulls away and you never deal with those aliens again. But the characters change from week to week. So any change you make to them as characters, the audience expects, and the writers want, to play it the following week. So there was this tension between on the one hand we were creating this more character-oriented show and the pressure on the other hand to make it no so much a serialized show. We just sort of straddled that line to varying degrees to success.

TrekMovie.com: That line, did it get relaxed with Deep Space Nine? Why was Deep Space Nine allowed to really run with serialization to the point where they did almost season-long arcs?

Ron More: Well I think it was built into the fabric of the show in a way it wasn’t with the other series. The nature of the show itself was that it is a space station that doesn’t go anywhere so the storylines tended to stick around. The Enterprise, like I said earlier, could pull up to a planet and have an episode and keep going. With Deep Space Nine, anything that took place on the station, well guess what? Next week you are still on the station. And Bajor is not going anywhere. So really you had to keep playing those stories. You couldn’t  make a big change in Bajor’s political structure in one week and then ignore it then next. You had to keep it going. Kira’s story with his relationship with Bajorans had to keep evolving and so did Sisko’s and they had a long-term mission. They had a mission about Bajor into the Federation. That alone meant that it was going to be serialized at least on that front. And the Runabouts were intended at the beginning to give them the chance to get off the station and do stand-alone episodes and they did. They were to do that throughout the seasons, but the fundamentals on the show were always on the station and the station kept all the plot lines around and we kept developing them and developing them and eventually– essentially Rick and the studio just kind of threw up their hands and gave up at a certain point and started concentrating on Voyager. [laughs] The mad men running Deep Space Nine and the writers room weren’t listening and the show didn’t seem to work any other way…and so whatever. So we just did what we wanted to at a certain point. 


Moore carried Worf’s arc all the way to getting married in "You Are Cordially Invited" in the 6th season of DS9

TrekMovie.com: Regarding continuity you were recently quoted saying something to the effect of "Star Trek has too much continuity."… Do you find it ironic that you were the guy back in the 90s saying "let’s put more continuity in this thing" and are now the one saying there is too much?

Ron Moore: Yah I do think that is ironic. I can appreciate that. When I started, you have to remember there were exactly three seasons of the Original Series and six movies and two seasons of Next Gen. It wasn’t that hard to keep it all straight. You could sit in the writers room and keep it all in your head. By the end of Next Generation we able to do that. As we got deeper into Deep Space Nine it started to become more and more difficult to do that. And as Voyager started to get up and going and it was running concurrently with Deep Space Nine, we all started to get a little stir crazy with it. Because as a writer you want to be able to create things in the moment. You want to be able have something happen on the page. You want a character to talk about an experience that they had and be able to introduce a starship captain and introduce them into a scene and have them start talking about a mission they went on twenty years ago and they remember encountering the Romulan ambassador on a certain outpost and having this strange adventure with them. And you want to be able to invent that. It gets to a point now when you try and invent some scene and everyone goes "I’m sorry but twenty years ago the Romulan ambassador would not be at place" and you go "it doesn’t matter how about the Tholian ambassador," "up no sorry, in episode so and so and this episode on Voyager determines the Tholians would be over here…" You start getting caged in. You start getting more and more aware of the strictures of what you can and can’t do. And back stories and anecdotes and personal histories have to all fit within this vast map of all these intersecting points of continuity and it becomes incredibly straight jacketed.

The lack of creativity is profound and you start worrying more and more about just coloring between the lines than you are making new and engaging stories. Plus the simple fact that you can’t keep it straight. We started having tech advisors on the set — in the art department, like the Okudas, keeping all the continuity for us. And they were becoming more and more useful. But it is frustrating to be in the writers room and tossing out stories then having to stop yourself and go ‘does this work?’ ‘does this violate continuity?’ And having to call people and check encyclopedias and look up information. You want to have it all in your head and just play. The Trek universe has got to the point where you can’t play anymore. It just becomes forbidding. I think it is even more forbidding for a new audience to try to  come in and get involved in this new universe. Where do you pick up and how do you understand all these references. It is impenetrable at a certain point. So I was a big advocate of just wiping the slate and starting over. OK this was version one of Trek. Love it. Celebrate it. Watch it forever if that is your cup of tea, go ahead. Let’s have version two…let’s have another Starship Enterprise with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy and let’s tell a different version of the event’s. Look at Shakespeare. How many versions of "Cleopatra" can the world stand? As many as you can think of. Let’s just do a different take on it and get energy out of it and not worry about all the back stories and not get caught up in what is the first time we supposed to have seen the Romulans. Really we have to now say that we can never do any other back-story with the Romulans except that the first time a human being saw them they looked like Spock’s father. We are wedding to that for now on even though it is kind of creaky and there is probably a better way to tell the Romulan story than to rely on that notion. It just seems like you want freedom. You want Trek to be fun. So make it fun.

More Moore coming up!
Over the next week look more of TrekMovie’s exclusive interview with Ron Moore, where he talks more about DS9, Voyager, Battlestar, First Contact, Generations, his new shows and JJ Abrams Star Trek.


 

Comments

1. Garovorkin - June 12, 2008

Ron Mooore and Ira Steven Bher by doing what they did in DS9 probably saved the trek Franchise creeping calcification and irrelevancy.

2. RTC - June 12, 2008

I expect Moore’s comments about continuity will start a firestorm of comments. But I salute his bravery for doing it. I, for one, still believe that a good Trek writer can be creative AND preserve, at the very least, the essence of continuity … but admittedly it’s a challenge, and the idea of a Trek 2.0 isn’t necessarily a bad one.

3. Rainbucket - June 12, 2008

I’m not surprised he emphasized the crew over the planet of the week. Maybe it’ll come up in part two, but Moore also deserves credit for making all of the DS9 ensemble into well realized characters. It got so you could drop them into any scene and watch them play out.

None of the other Trek series managed that. Too many cast members were stuck playing bland ciphers. Even Chakotay, a Maquis leader with the advantage of Robert Beltran playing him, spent most of Voyager as a generic slate. How do you waste that for seven seasons?

4. krikzil - June 12, 2008

DS9 was my favorite Trek after TOS — complex, interesting characters. I never agreed with the Roddenberry “perfect” box in TNG.

5. James Heaney - Wowbagger - June 12, 2008

Anthony: you are amazing.

Moore: also amazing. Comments on continuity are right on target; I skipped to that and have a lot else to read.

6. jmdiaz - June 12, 2008

Too bad Berman took control of Voyager….that premise was so freakin good and they squandered it.

7. Xai, (remembering the Boy Scouts and Flood victims of Iowa) - June 12, 2008

I have almost always enjoyed Moore’s work.

#6 Agreed

8. WVtrekker - June 12, 2008

Gene’s ideas were nice but sometimes unrealistic. I’m glad Mr. Moore was able to use some of Gene’s vision but temper it to reality.

9. Buckaroohawk - June 12, 2008

RTC (#2),

You’re right, writer can be craetive and still preserve the essence of established continuity were it not for two very large obstacles:

1. Time. Series writers work under incredibly tough deadlines and sometimes you have to let a good idea go because it would take too long to fully develop it enough to fit established continuity. A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and the next thing you know, your story is gone.

2. Nitpicky Fans. Trek fans love to dissect things to the Nth degree, and they’ll pounce like tigers on any perceived inconsistency. Don’t yell at me, we all do it.

The writers of TNG era Trek were also trying to preserve the stories that they had created before, just as any series writers would. Continuity is a double-edged sword. It makes for very effective character development and helps audiences commit themselves to those characters on an emotional level. But it can also keep writers from making bold or sweeping changes for fear of alienating the audience they worked so hard to build. A very fine line to walk, indeed.

10. Robogeek - June 12, 2008

Anthony: I’ve been really looking forward to this interview, and it sure didn’t disappoint. Thoroughly fascinating and very illuminating.

And big thanks to Ron for sharing his insights and experiences. Great stuff. (I’m on pins and needles awaiting tomorrow’s mid-season Galactica finale!)

11. CW - June 12, 2008

If you care enough about what you are doing, then it is possible to preserve continuity AND tell a good story.

But you have to care.

12. Dom - June 12, 2008

BANG!

The sound of Ron Moore hitting the nail on the head!

Every complaint I ever had about modern Trek is addressed in that article and all those poor writers have my sympathies for being trapped by The Roddenberry Box!

Ron says practically word for word what I’ve been saying to people about modern Trek for almost 20 years. And my suspicions about Gene Roddenberry’s messiah complex have been confirmed!

Judging from his version of Galactica, if Ron Moore had had complete freedom to create and run a ‘Star Trek version 2′ TV show, it could have truly been something to behold! Ironically, like a lot of us, he understands Star Trek better than its creator!

Magnificent work, Anthony!

13. Anthony Pascale - June 12, 2008

I would like to get some feedback on the audio version. Did you listen to it? do you prefer audio. Is the quality OK? would you prefer video? if phone interview would you prefer video with images added?

I want to make TrekMovie more of a multimedia experience with more audio and video and need some feedback

14. Matt - June 12, 2008

The audio was solid. It crackled in places though, but it didn’t detach itself.

But great interview Anthony!

15. Matt - June 12, 2008

detract from the presentation*

16. Cap'n Calhoun - June 12, 2008

Great article, but part of the transcript is driving me crazy:

Was that a conscience effort to change the show?

conscience = The “voice in your head” that tells you if something is wrong or right.

conscious = To be aware of something; to do something knowingly.

17. oztrek - June 12, 2008

#13

Well there is a bit of hum on the audio which is slightly distracting. Mybe a high pass filter would get rid of some of it?

However, I read it first then listened after your post and discovered the audio is far more informative as vocal inflections change the nuance of some of the meaning I gleaned form the text.

Great interview btw.

I am sure a few will be disappointed to know that the writing staff didn’t believe in a utopian vision of the future. It was the thing that attracted me and kept me in the loop 700 episodes and ten movies later.

18. Denise de Arman - June 12, 2008

I for one could never just forget about Balance of Terror and its specific contribution to ST canon insofar as Spock’s character is concerned. The episode was about much more than the Romulans looking like Spock’s father, as Moore put it. That episode laid the entire groundwork for the ancient Vulcan civilization, its changover from a barbarous warrior system to the ideals of Surak, and specific attitudes and ideals that the present-day Vulcans and Romulans might still have in common.

It is one thing to write alternative-universe stories in fanfic or even novels. It is a whole different genre when applied to the screen, as only the screen is supposedly canon. There is a reason for that difference. Watching a moving picture on a theatre screen or on the television in your home makes the story come alive and pulls the viewer into the lives of the characters as a written story does not. How does one reconcile that to Moore’s seemingly blase’ attitude toward continuity in those same character’s lives? Alternate-universe stories, while having a very specific place in science fiction, could never work as a rule in the writers’ room. I am sorry Mr. Moore found that to be a hinderence to his creativity, however, we all have things about our jobs that we do not like.

When Voyager first came on and presented a Vulcan as Chief Security officer, they lost me as a viewer. When Enterprise decided to have Vulcan “warships” start roaming the sector, they lost me as a viewer. This does not mean I myself am locked into a canon straightjacket. The point is this: when very important details such as the Vulcans being a pacifist race are ignored in what I deem to be lazy writing, what else will be ignored, and how soon will this universe cease to be Star Trek at all? If I want to watch Outer Limits, BSG or Buck Rogers, for that matter, I look for those titles. When I look for Star Trek, I want my Vulcans to be pointy-eared pacifists who can mindmeld, I want phasers, transporters, replicators – I want the Star Trek I know. Is that too much to ask – I sincerely do not think so.

19. max - June 12, 2008

I just read the transcript, but for what its worth, nice interview. Its always nice to hear from Ron.

20. Eric Cheung - June 12, 2008

About a month shy of eleven years old, I went to my first convention October 3rd, 1992 and I saw him tease some upcoming episodes like Relics and Rascals (which I think he did a pass on), and was fascinated by Ronald D. Moore.

He’s always seemed like this cool, smart, down-to-earth writer that’s been able to marry the creative with the sensible. And I think he’s exactly right here.

If they want to they should wipe the slate completely clean. I guess I’m a little bit ambivalent because it seems like a partial reboot. But, either way it looks like it’ll be a really cool writer.

Also, outside of comic books and religions have there ever been universes this massive with this many characters? And the difference with comic books is that most of them deal in floating timelines whereas Trek is set to very specific dates in its own history. I think that’s a pretty major point that gets overlooked when talking about all this rebooting business.

If it’s a total reboot then they can have it take place next year for all we know, but if not, then it’s harder to reconcile everything.

I guess I’m saying, who really knows? It’s uncharted territory, and no doubt a little scary for some of us fans that know this universe, but I suppose as Henry Archer said, “We can’t be afraid of the wind.”

Also, regarding the media used above: having audio is great, video great, I think whatever media needed to get the point across is best. If the interview was recorded on audio, and the audio is good, then audio plus the transcript as in this article is great. If it’s on video and the video is good, then video with a transcript. Though in either case, if there are more abstract points that would be better served with archival photos, footage, charts, etc. then that integrated with the source media and a transcript. I think it’s never the medium, but how its used. And this site excels in information and presentation via very in-depth and thorough journalism

21. Josh - June 12, 2008

Ron Moore is my hero

22. the king in shreds and tatters - June 12, 2008

As long as you have the big-ass wiki to consult.

23. Alex Rosenzweig - June 12, 2008

I like Ron Moore a lot, but I think he’s dead-on-balls wrong when it comes to the idea of continuity being limiting.

A fictional world without continuity also lacks believability. And Trek has such a huge world that there’re vast amounts of room for both continuity and creativity. To abandon either is a betrayal, IMHO.

24. warptrek - June 12, 2008

Ron Moore had some good ideas. But he also had many bad ideas.
I never quite bought into the ‘Ronald D Moore – Savior of Trek’ mindset.
There seems to be this cult built around him and I think it’s over hyped, just like BSG is over hyped. I would prefer to keep him as far away from J.J.Abrams Trek as possible… but thats just my two credits.

25. CW - June 12, 2008

#18-
Fantastic post.

26. Lope de Aguirre - June 13, 2008

I’m a fan of Ron Moore which started with Trek (he wrote most of the best TNG and DS9 episodes and co-wrote the only two sufficient TNG movies along with great thoughts about writing and Trek in general) and went on with “Carnivale” and “Battlestar Galactica”.

His character and political centered aproach really is my cup of tea.

There are many problems with the canon thing.
Aside from the points Moore made in this interview like caged writing possibilities and making it hard for new audiences to get a grip on Trek, here are some aditional thoughts from myself:

– there are many flaws in canon already so it’s kind of silly to beat a dead horse
– the rough canon which is established (for my tastes WAS prior to Enterprise; don’t get me wrong I saw all of Trek aside TAS and some VOY episodes and like ENT. In fact it is my second favorite Trek show after DS9 but how the start of the human adventure and the first encounters with many species was portrayed in this show was really REALLY disappointing) in Trek is interesting.
In comparision to say “Babylon 5″ or “The Lord of the Rings” it fails miserably.
Granted these universes were established a lot more by one person and in a tighter timeframe (production wise).

But If I look a the Trek timeframe I see many good stuff like the eugenic wars, the founding of the federation, first contact with the Vulcans, the revelation of the link between Romulans and Vulcans, the Mirror universe, the peace treaty with the Klingons, the Cardassian/Bajoran history and the Dominion War BUT it is all watered down by bad execution and a lot of bad or uninteresting episodes.

Sure in TOS and TNG times TV wasn’t that serialized and drama and character writing wasn’t that sophisticated in this medium.
And Later Trek could and should have done thigns differently but mostly they just didn’t (cough Voyager cough) – so we end up with so much great potential all unrealized.

A Trek 2.0 could be the greatest thing in Sci-Fi EVER.

But as it is now I prefer “Firefly”, “Farscape”, new “Battlestar Galactica” and “Babylon 5″.

27. Jim Nightshade - June 13, 2008

I luv all you guyz…..such varied viewpoints! IDIC obviously lives. Its obvious that no matter what JJ Abrams and crew do or don’t do, some will love it some will hate it…As far as the website….I prefer the text and great Pics that you choose with your awesome articles. I do most of my reading in my bedroom in bed with my Nintendo DS Web Browser—many web sites don’t work with it but yours works great! I have enjoyed every star trek series, and movies to varying degrees, as none are perfect but all do strive to show mankind as being capable of exploring, growing and are hopeful and positive for our human future in times that don’t seem so wonderful for our real future. I need star trek now more than I ever did, as sometimes it seems we are all teetering on the brink of oblivion from our own pettiness, selfishness and fears. I also have to agree with those who mentioned that Gene’s utopian views are what make TREK special and different from say, Star Wars, BSG or any other series. Sure TOS was very human but still striving to be better, and I like that by TNG they were striving to be a bit better. It does make it harder to write for, but I think its worth it. I care less about absolute or perfect continuity and more that any new work stays true to Genes original ideals. Its a bit Ironic that Gene tried hard to have his future universe not be religious and yet his positive hopes for humanities future are what gives Star Trek its Soul…..and why it has inspired many on many levels….

28. subatoi - June 13, 2008

Very intersting interview. Looking forward to part II.

29. Mark Lynch - June 13, 2008

It is nice to have the choice of Audio or transcript. My personal preference is to read through the transcript.
I find it is easier to go through the written words as you can take as long as you like to peruse and understand what has been ‘said’.
Also you can to and from back to the article as many times as you like picking up where you left off.

As for continuity, I guess the writers need some form of Memory Alpha Wikipedia with all the episodes… ;-)

30. Wrath - June 13, 2008

Ron Moore rules

31. Lope de Aguirre - June 13, 2008

Strange I tried to post an elaborate opinion and analysis several times.

Anyway: I like videos and audio files more most of the time than written text but the written part should always additional be there.

And as another user already said – it isn’t necessary the medium itself but the use of it.

This particular audio interview was good but in future the sound quality should get a little better.

32. SD - June 13, 2008

Very, very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

33. SD - June 13, 2008

P.S. I agree that there’s a very low, humming sound in the sound file which is slightly annoying :)

#27: Wasn’t it mentioned that for the new movie, writers really used Memory Alpha?

34. Tango - June 13, 2008

The bottem line is that there can be so much stuff that can happen during a character’s lifetime. They don’t live forever. They have a childhood, they grow up, have experiences that shape them and give them conflict and they always fight with those demons. Continuity helps you understand and identify with them and if you mess too much with continuity you can feel cheated, because you don’t believe in them anymore. The only way around this is to resolve the characters and move on to a different set of characters.

Sometimes you can get away with a reboot like bsg, but once you do that, you still have to create new continuity within the new framework, and it really is a new piece of work at that point.

35. DJT - June 13, 2008

Good to hear from Ron.

36. Paul Martin - June 13, 2008

Anthony –
Call me boring (most people do!) but reading the interviews sat having a sarnie in works lunch break makes my day! :)

37. Colonel Kevin - June 13, 2008

Fantastic interview, it’s always a real pleasure to hear Ron Moore talk about Trek, especially in light of his experiences post-BSG. I’m on the fence on whether or not I agree that Star Trek needs a 2.0, but I certainly get where he’s coming from with it, and if I had spent a decade being nibbled to death by obsessive fact checking fans, I’d probably be ready to start over as well.

Anyways, the audio is definetely preferable, even with the small buzz, as it allows me to listen to it at work, but keep doing the transcripts as well, since that’s usually my preference when at home.

38. DJ Neelix - June 13, 2008

If they would reboot Star Trek then it wouldn’t be Star Trek anymore, just another sci-fi show. It’s the continuity that has made so many people love it, I’m certain of that. It has its own univerise and you can’t destroy it and preserve it at the same time.

39. Uncle Twitchy - June 13, 2008

Ron Moore killed Captain Kirk.

Badly.

40. Randall - June 13, 2008

I kind of nastily knocked Moore (probably unfairly) a while back as the creative mind behind Battlestar Galactica—a show I find highly overrated. But in this interview he seems largely on target about certain things regarding Star Trek, and in particular Gene Roddenberry. The more we hear about Roddenberry as years go by (stories from Nimoy and Shatner, for instance) the more he sounds like an ego out of control in some ways… not just in some typically conceited way, but in an almost whacked-out way… as evinced by all this stuff about the fundamental changes in humanity in only three or four hundred years’ time (no greed, no jealousies, no religion, etc.) which always struck me as… almost cultish. Which is where utopian visions tend to go, I suppose.

Now, Moore was responsible for some of the best of TNG, so there’s no equivocation on my part there–I distinctly remember how godawful the first two seasons of TNG were (I still feel the show never really recovered from all the errors Roddenberry and others had made in not just those first two seasons, but also in the fundamental bases of the series) but his statements about story arcs and continuity leave me feeling a bit…. skeptical. On the one hand, Moore is right—a series should be free to develop story arcs if they want to—to some extent—because as we know, real life problems aren’t resolved in 48 minutes with 12 minutes of commercials (or whatever the hell it is these days). But then again, that IS what TV is about. It’s a story shrunk down into a particular format. So not all fiction, be it the written word or the audio/visual, has to strive to be “real life” in its scope. In fact, this is silly anyway, as real life goes on for years, and often never resolves anything. Storytelling has always been something *other* than real life.

So on the one hand, I sympathize with Moore’s feelings about story arcs–it offers freedom and fun to the writer, and can be more challenging and allow an opportunity for more in-depth storywriting. And some fans love that stuff—they get into the whole thing about having to come back to the TV same time next week to catch the latest installment in the serial. Hence the passion some people have for Battlestar.

But that can be slavish, too. And not just for the audience, but for the writers. And it can also descend into mere soap opera—very, very easily. I’ve said this about Battlestar, but it’s even more true of DS9, which while often exciting and cool (I’ve criticized the show, but I thought it had the most interesting cast of any of the neo-Treks) was also far too often mired in the kind of storytelling that we see in daytime TV, though of course done in an entirely different way…. but nevertheless still recognizably a soap opera.

And maybe some people don’t have a problem with that, but when I would watch DS9, I would end up finding it interminably dull. I found myself phasing out whenever they’d spend X number of minutes with this uninteresting exchange between this and that side character regarding, oh… the machinations going on on Bajor, or someone’s love life or whatever the hell it was… and just waiting for something interesting to happen. And there were episodes where nothing ever did. 50 minutes were spent establishing all the little bits and pieces for the various story arcs going on…. so that the *next* episode could have some action in it. Now, there’s times, in various forms of storytelling, where that kind of thing is necessary, as long as it’s under control. But on TV it just plods. There’s a fine line on TV between the serialized story and the soap opera–and it’s far too easy to cross. And in fact I’m not so sure they’re even all that different.

As for continuity—while reading Moore’s interview, I kept wanting to say to him, why did you all make it so difficult for yourselves then? I don’t see this as the fault of the fans (though yes, they can be an absurdly nerdy lot with all their tiny factoids about this imaginary universe) so much as the writers and producers. They had three seasons of the original Trek to work from. And not all of those episodes had major points that really would have related to continuity all that much, in a setting one hundred plus years later. The only show that I think that should have really had any real problem with this was Enterprise, as it had to make sure it didn’t contradict what was already established on TOS, lest it just make the whole thing look silly. But why should it have mattered that TOS put certain markers down for the Vulcans or Romulans or Klingons or what have you? TOS was always deliberately and wisely vague on almost all of its big points—the Romulans were an exception, but so–work with it.

What Moore is really saying, of course, is that these guys, in having all these separate shows going at once, couldn’t keep *their own* act straight. This isn’t a fault of Star Trek, it’s a fault in the idea of trying to do complex shows all at once that are supposed to jibe with each other. And rather than keep it vague, leaving room to breathe, they had opted at times to make it tough on themselves. Story arcs are a perfect example. It never made any sense, for instance, that we had this protracted “war” going on on DS9, when over in TNG end of things, (which by this time was in its film run) they were dealing with… the Borg. Or something else. The war was mentioned, I think… but that was it. Made no sense. Yet the war on DS9 seemed vast in scope. And it created all sorts of continuity questions and problems.

No, while I think it’s true, on the one hand, that Roddenberry had tied the vision of Trek down too much, and some of these guys wisely broke out of that—it’s also true that they then proceeded to make their own mistakes. And it ended as it inevitably would–with a tired and worn-out franchise that got too deeply mined too quickly and haphazardly.

41. Dennis Bailey - June 13, 2008

Moore’s right about Trek continuity, of course.

42. Mike - June 13, 2008

Ron Moore knows what he’s talking about.

43. The Underpants Monster - June 13, 2008

See, to my mind it was the conflict between the two mindsets (Roddenberry et al’s utopianism and Moore’s more pessimistic outlook) that made TNG into good drama. Creative conflict is always good, because you end up with something better than either camp could have come up with on its own.

DS9 went too far the other way, because the creative team was all too much in sync with each other. BSG, although it’s good, suffers from the same pitfalls. I think it shows a lack of creativity on moore’s part that he insists on every detail of these far-flung alien societies be so scrupulously the same as the society he live is. It’s the differences that make it interesting – for my money scifi is all about the “what if,” and not just “what if we had spaceships and robots.”

44. Garovorkin - June 13, 2008

Im sorry I like the next generation but I just found Picard and company to not be believable, There is one thing Roddenberry just did to seem to understand or want to understand, good dramas have character conflict, egos disagreements,people acting both nobly and Cowardly, being flawed and ego driven is part of the whole human drama of life and that should reflect in our fiction. you take that out of the equation, At best you have drama that is tepid and uninteresting , at worst you have no dram at all. In the future we might be better people , but we area always going to be flawed creatures and our flaws are aways going scew up any attempt at utopia. It’s like Jack Webb and his phoney police drama, Dragnet, he portayed cops in ideal mode rather then a real one, Roddenberry seems to project the future in much the same way.

45. Spock - June 13, 2008

TNG was boring compared to DS9. DS9 took the bland TNG universe and made it interesting.

46. US Taxpayer Dude - June 13, 2008

Ron Moore is a brave man to speak these truths to the Mind Numbed Robots of Fandom. But it is truth, no less.

The principle men that created Star Trek back in the 1960s were almost all combat veterans of WWII or Korea. Most of the actors were former servicemen, too, and if they didn’t see combat, their officers certainly did.

I have not been in military combat, but I have been in several life-and-death predicaments. It certainly clarifies life for you! I also understand why soldiers despise battle – it is how anyone whose been in a fight thinks – but human nature has never changed in all recorded history.

This is where Roddenberry left the reservation. He was avant gard in the Sixties’ New Morality and, I think, tried to justify his personal immorality through the forced “utopianism” of his Star Trek idea. It’s like Lennon’s “Imagine” – an anthem to pure selfishness that acts as a salve for the conscience even as it is pure bunk because people don’t work that way.

So Roddenberry, an obviously talented and creative writer but a deeply flawed man with demons of sex, drugs, a crisis of the soul, and perhaps more, immersed himself in a make-believe world of fantasy where there is no right or wrong, expect for the idea of tolerance. This is mirrored on university today and, here in the real world, we see that it works only under one specific set of conditions:

Pure tolerance requires the palpable threat of force to compel compliance of those still prejudiced, still greedy, still ambitious, still sometimes heroic and even noble human souls.

To quote a famous English writer, the future is a boot crushing the human face forever. Even it is has “tolerance and do-good” embroidered on the sole.

Food for thought. Gene Roddenberry should be remembered and lauded for what he did — which is considerable — but not lionized for what he believed. Ron Moore is the proof.

47. Garovorkin - June 13, 2008

One other point, if Roddenberry had been alive during Ds9 run, he would have hobbled it with the utopian baggage. We would not have gotten a character like Commander Eddington, Roddenberry would not have allowed it.. Nor would he have allowed en episode like the Valiant, to be and end the way it did. Oh no no these messy human realities had no place in the trek universe or it they did is was the aliens who had them not the utopian humans of the future, does any one else see problem with this? because I have a problem with this A lot hardcore science fiction fans seem look down their noses at trek, good science fiction is not necessarily utopian, more often then not is messy and the character are not often the most liable or sympathetic of characters. Thats what Ron Moore tried to do with Trek, give it a much needed does of reality When you go into a bookstore, in the science fiction, trek has its own section, its part of the science section, its apart from it, like the Star Wars section.

48. cp - June 13, 2008

I think #33 pretty much said what I’ve been thinking– if Abrams does things in STXI that contradict the facts of canon in some ways, he’s not destroying continuity but /preserving/ it by creating a new one that won’t interfere with previously established canon. The Star Trek universe /is/ huge and complicated, and while to fans and to fanfic writers that might read as more to jump off from, to those actually writing the shows and movies it means boundaries to stay inside as long as all the facts of that universe need to be preserved accurately.

It’s a question of audience, I think. Take for example: I see a handful of people on here saying they want a movie or show about Riker on the Titan, and I see another handful of people who think that TOS and the first six movies are the only real canon. How many of the latter group– let alone casual fans or nonfans– would actually be willing to watch a movie or show about the Titan? Not many. Almost certainly not enough to make that kind of production venture financially worthwhile.

It doesn’t cost much to publish a Trek novel, or to write and post a piece of fanfiction, so people writing those can afford to appeal to narrower audiences. There’s such a huge variety of both that there can be, and are, stories written about (to keep my example) Riker captaining the Titan; those stories won’t have universal appeal, but they won’t /need/ to. A movie or television series, on the other hand, costs a lot of money to make and usually needs to appeal to the widest audience possible in order to be successful. If TPTB decided to put something onscreen about Riker captaining the Titan, it would represent a far, far bigger investment into something that would attract the same relatively small audience.

My point being! (Wow, this got long.) Yeah, the hugeness of established ST canon could hypothetically represent a lot of potentially unexplored material, but it makes a lot more financial and practical sense for Abrams to stick relatively close to areas that have already been covered. And he’s apparently (hopefully!) doing that by maintaining the spirit of canon– the characters, their relationships, the overarching themes of the show– without getting tangled in too many facts.

49. Schiefy - June 13, 2008

Anthony–great interview!

I read the transcript which did have some of those word choice issues as noted in an earlier post (my wife transcribed book titles from tape for the used bookstore I worked in and we had fun with one title that was supposed to be “Balm in Gilead” but she typed “Bombs in Gilead”–must have been some Middle East conflict going on at the time which is a great example of something that has lasted hundreds and even thousands of years and still hasn’t gone away or turned into utopia or done away with religion! but I digress…). With my current hearing deficiency (and even with hearing aids) I sometimes have problems with audio so I prefer the transcripts ALTHOUGH it misses the subtleties of the speaker’s emphases/emotions. Video also adds all the body language as well.

What Ron had to say about Roddenberry missing the point of dramatic TV (entertainment) was very well stated. It is interesting that TOS had plenty of drama and imperfect humans but in the end aspired to the utopia that Roddenberry desired and thus inspired us to become a “better person” for the future. TOS (and by extension TNG, etc.) didn’t have to take place in utopia in order to give us the dream–compared to the 60s backdrop of TOS it was utopia because although not perfect it still envisioned a more optimistic future than the present world. When TNG came on the scene in the apathetic 80s the idea of a more perfect utopia might have been an attempt to contrast (and reflect to some extent) with modern culture–but it was a contrast that led to the “box” that forced Trek to be something less realistic. While we want our characters to be noble and full of integrity, we don’t mind if they falter a bit and act human–in drama it is the journey to that something better that makes conflict acceptable and in the end inspires as Trek has done.

On the issue of continuity, I think Moore described the reality of doing a weekly TV show where you are working hard to do good drama each week but don’t have the time to be careful in both how something you want to do now is/is not in continuity with something that happened earlier and how it might “restrict” future story lines later on. It is amazing what some the Trek novel authors (and their tireless editors) have been able to do with continuity issues (with varying degrees of success) when they have the time to really research and develop a way out of the “box” so it might be a bit much to expect that some level of creativity in the pressure cooker of weekly TV. Of course, the differences between the medium allows one more “space” to develop creative continuity than the other–and thus accounts for the difficulty of bringing Kirk back in a movie versus Shatner bringing Kirk back in his novels (aside from the storyline in the movie being more about Spock and the novels more about Kirk). I think Moore and all of the other writers of TV/movie Trek have done a fabulous job of trying to maintain continuity–and when they don’t either because they didn’t catch it or purposely ignored it, then we Nit-Pickers have something to do with those quiet Friday evenings….:)

Thanks again, Anthony, for the insightful interview and allowing Ron to speak truthfully about the challenges of creating something wonderful and still appease the Monday morning quarterbacks. And thanks for this superb site to satiate those of us who still need our Trek fix even after 40+ years!!

50. Garovorkin - June 13, 2008

Strict adherence to this cumbersome canon is hobbling the trek verse, not really helping it.

51. Schiefy - June 13, 2008

Always great to see other posts that show up while writing your own that show the consensus of thought…:)

52. Garovorkin - June 13, 2008

Ds9 did another important thing with regard to the Trekverse, allowed a war to happen, Roddenberry would not have allowed the whole Dominion war to have taken place. You see Roddenberry’s belief would have been , the Dominion is not evil its just misunderstood, and if we it i right down at the table, we work everything out with out resorting to to ugly un necessary conflict. The problem is that in power politics when your dealing with an enemy a one side myopic view of things is just a realistic one.

53. Closettrekker - June 13, 2008

The whole “Section 31″ concept (and specifically, the way that Starfleet Command brushed it under the rug) is a prime example of an element that Gene would likely have disapproved of being depicted in his benevolent and “utopian” Federation.

TOS offered us a vision of a more evolved social sensibility among humans and their allies, but it was never quite “utopian”. That was Gene’s revisionist view. I think he wanted TNG to reflect that a bit more, but the result was never as interesting. Removing currency, for example (which really happened in TVY, which Gene had no hand in), was a mistake. And depicting Picard and co. as being “holier than thou” made them more disconnected, IMO. It’s interesting that Gene wanted to purge religion from the Star Trek universe. That also seems unbelievable, as the need for faith and comfort in the belief in an afterlife and answers to questions of origin and purpose are unlikely to disappear from the human mind in a few hundred years (my personal views aside).

54. The Underpants Monster - June 13, 2008

“but human nature has never changed in all recorded history…it is pure bunk because people don’t work that way.”

But how much of what we assume is “human nature” is a result of the limitations we face as a still fairly young species?

That may be the way people are NOW, but how do we know it WILL be what people might be like in a future where we’ve managed to solve many of the problems that make them that way? To assume that the way people act and think can never be changed from the exact way they do today, seems myopic and not very creative.

The most interesting conflict doesn’t always have to be man against man; man against himself and man against nature are some of the mopst compelling conflicts in literature.

55. Garovorkin - June 13, 2008

If you look at history, the most advanced civilzations tended not to be the most human of culture, The Sumerians, Babylonian,Assyrians. Persia Greek Romans,Hand Dynasty,shogun Japan Mayas,incas and Aztecs,kush,India Han dynasty of China, all of them achieved a high level of civilization, but none could in any way be called utopian, for alot of reasons, and of course. The Modern tworld though better is still a far cry from utopia, and it’s seems unlikely that we will ever achieve it, look at the fact that the 20th century was the bloodiest in all of human history, and it looks like century 21 is shaping up to be a whole lot worse, Technology is a very double edged sword indeed. It makes certain aspects of our live better, buts its also made warefare that much more lethal, or so it seems

56. Eric Cheung - June 13, 2008

38. What Moore and Braga were trying to do with Generations was a very brave and ambitious thing for their first motion picture screenplay: take a hero worshipped by fans the world over and give him a *relatively* unassuming death. They wanted to say that crap happens to people, that even heroes are human, they’re mortal. Even heroes can get by hit by a bus. Whether or not it worked is debatable, but I think that had more to do with the convoluted machinations of the device that got Kirk into the 24th century.

53. but person against person is the one that translates best to television, and its brand of long-form storytelling. Person against his or herself might work in novels and person against nature may work on film, but to sustain a series one must have other characters off of which to bounce. The tension there is what makes the show and adds dimension, even if there is a person against nature or self arc driving the plot of the show.

Also there are certain genetic realities to this species that won’t change that we have very personal goals and emotions that conflict with others, even if we began to tamper with our own genetic makeup (which is outlawed in Star Trek anyway).

57. Gary - June 13, 2008

As I watch BSG, I wonder what Ron would have done to Voyager if he had been the showrunner.

I think he would have had Voyager not look pristine after seven years, and also would have killed off half the cast.

It probably would have been a better show.

58. The Underpants Monster - June 13, 2008

“but person against person is the one that translates best to television”

Well, it may be for some, and that’s why it’s good to have variety, even within the same canon!

“Also there are certain genetic realities to this species that won’t change that we have very personal goals and emotions that conflict with others, even if we began to tamper with our own genetic makeup (which is outlawed in Star Trek anyway)”

I’m sure that’s true, but at this point we have no way of knowing which traits of “human nature” are the ones we can never shake.

Look at everything that happens between now and then: The collapse and rebirth of society on Earth, planetary hegemone, meeting and learning from extraterrestrial cultures, amazing technological advances that transform every aspect of daily life…it seems couterintuitive to me to imagine that these things wouldn’t have any effect on the way people think and act.

It’s just a matter of differeing tastes – I prefer my parallels to modern society to be a bit more subtle and not so beaten-over-the-head.

59. Closettrekker - June 13, 2008

#53—“To assume that the way people act and think can never be changed from the exact way they do today, seems myopic and not very creative.”

I don’t think anyone is assuming that at all. People can “gain greater control of” their nature, as they indeed have in, for example, the last 300 years. But that is not the same thing as “changing” their nature.

And portraying a society who no longer deals with hunger and the basic necessities of survival, for example, could never eliminate the cause for some form of currency. People will still (IMO), even in the 23rd-24th Centuries, seek material which is, if not outright bigger and better than their neighbor has, then at least that (or those) material possession(s) which set them apart as individuals.

Moreover, what would be there to motivate an individual who might be otherwise prone to laziness, to become a productive member of society? It’s all well and good to say that everyone is simply out to better the universe and the people in it, but that doesn’t make it one bit more believeable.

How would you get a home? Does everyone get one? Who decides who gets a big one and who gets a smaller one? Are they all the same? What happens when you need a bigger one? How about when you have to move? Who gets your old one, and how is that determined? How do people like Harry Mudd, the space hippies, or Cyrano Jones get a spaceship? Did they replicate them? If so, why are they so crappy?

“The most interesting conflict doesn’t always have to be man against man; man against himself and man against nature are some of the mopst compelling conflicts in literature.”

Very true, but to limit the stories only to those themes would be handicapping to say the least.

60. Garovorkin - June 13, 2008

Human being by nature S.O.B ‘s and I think we are always going to be that way thought our tenure as a species. I think that if we stop being this way, we would become unable to adapt or survive and that would be the end of us. Human beings are capable of being noble and good too, but its the dark underpinnings which keep us alive and striving or so it seems.

61. Nelson - June 13, 2008

Pretty cool interview, I’m still reading it.

I was curious if Trekmovie can make these interviews and past interviews available as podcasts for download for later consumption? Or perhaps there’s an issue with copyrights or permissions?

Thanks!!

62. Eric Cheung - June 13, 2008

Variety is good, and I’m not arguing against it. Nor am I suggesting that three-hundred years wouldn’t change the human race. But the basics of individuality will probably still be there unless we’re all assimilated into some forced concensus. And with that comes inherent tension, if not outright conflict because all beings, whether they’re human or alien or talking animal all have a point of view.

Just by having a regular cast of more than one person, you’d have more than one point of view, so there are always the relationships between these multiple people there, and all of the conflicting points-of-view therein. The regular cast usually doesn’t go away, and as a result those relationships and tensions don’t go away, so my point is just that in a TV show it’s virtually impossible to have a show *primarily* driven by person versus self or nature.

Even Quantum Leap had Al, even The Fugitive had Lt. Phillip Gerard. Only in an anthology series like The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits do the person versus self or nature episodes work as the general premise of the series.

63. Mike - June 13, 2008

As someone who has watched every episode of all 4 major series, the reason DS9 was so successful was that it brought a real sense of humanity and conflict that seemed easily resolved in the prior series (or entirely ignored in some cases in TNG and VOY).

Enterprise may not have been genius TV, but at least it attempted to fill in the gap of how humanity could possibly have lept from the imperfection we all recognize on a daily basis to the semi-Utopian ideals that proliferate throughout the later series. I particularly find some of the darker aspects of the S3 Xindi timeline adequately describes this transition, and DS9 completes it.

TNG and VOY come across more so as pure fantasy, with TOS stuck somewhere in the middle but protected in its “classic” shield from any further criticism.

64. MORN SPEAKS - June 13, 2008

Ron is THE MAN! Nough said!

65. MORN SPEAKS - June 13, 2008

Though, I must add that I don’t think you have to wipe Star Trek clean to be creative. The new Star Trek movie is a great idea and Star Trek: Enterprise was also a great idea.

It’ll be interesting to see where a new series would possibly go, it’d probably have to take place in the 25th Century.

66. Platitude - June 13, 2008

Great read! Ron Moore always did great work on Trek. Can’t wait for the rest of the interview!

67. cagmar - June 13, 2008

Ok. I loved the ‘perfect box.’ That is the heart of Star Trek. That’s why they were on a space ship — the universe is filled with unknowns and hate and fear and jealousy, and the idea was that the bad came from outside, and that after humanity had come together on their own soil, they were able to step out, united, and see what else existed. Together, with only good and respect and humility in their hearts, our race would find a way to persevere against anything without having to destroy or colonize. And we could build friendships and spread goodness, and learn to be better at the same time.

I really love Ronald D. Moore’s work… but complaints about the perfect box seem to me to be a sign of limited imagination. Sorry.

68. CW - June 13, 2008

“Sometimes you can get away with a reboot like bsg, but once you do that, you still have to create new continuity within the new framework, and it really is a new piece of work at that point.”

Exactly.
I wonder how willing he would be willing to violate continuity in his own BSG “just to tell a good story”.

If the next new episode of BSG featured Callie, and had a very good story about her, you know darn well that everyone here that boo-hoo’s “continuity” would be saying “wait a minute- she’s dead. How can this be a story about her being alive?”.

Continuity / canon FTW.

69. Thomas - June 13, 2008

66. “…complaints about the perfect box seem to me to be a sign of poor imagination. Sorry.”
You’re not a writer, are you?

70. Eric Cheung - June 13, 2008

67. Which is why he’s advocating a slate wiping. When it was just a few seasons and a few movies it was perfectly reasonable to keep it all straight and not feel the pressure of contradicting something. But when there’s 28 seasons of show plus 10 movies it’s hard to ask new writers to delve into that world, or to bring in new audiences. He’s not saying that the big pieces of canon within Trek 1.0 or Trek 2.0 or BSG should be tampered with for the sole sake of expediency. I think he’s said before though that a little bit of fidging is okay if it allows you to be more free to tell good stories and develop strong characters.

Moore takes a very sensible and balanced view of canon.

And the example above that says that the real world has history yet stories are told within that denies the fact that each time someone tells a new story, unless they’re directly tying it to a known fictional universe, is essentially a completely different fictional universe, even if it incorporates all of known history.

71. Maffc - June 13, 2008

Don’t you think that photo makes RDM look like Nathan Lane?

72. cagmar - June 13, 2008

#66 – “You’re not a writer, are you?”

Actually, Yes, I am. What’s your point?

73. Thomas Jensen - June 13, 2008

I’ve posted this before, but, for me, Star Trek consists of 79 episodes, six movies, three episodes of The Next Generation, one for DS9 and one for Voyager. Why? These are all episodes which involved the original series characters. So I consider them cannon.

Now is that to say the other series are lousy and I hate them? No, there are many great episodes in each series, but I don’t have the inclination to see all of them again, nor do I have the time.

So, I think Ron Moore is right on. He’d have started over, which is a great idea. My thought for the new movie was to have seen them just start with only recognizing the original series and the first six movies. With this, Kirk is still alive and so on.

They could build on what came before and it would be simple. Some history to build on, but not so much. Easy.

Great interview guys!

74. Thomas - June 13, 2008

73. My point is, that writing for Trek has to be particularly challenging. Sure, there’s a massive history from which stories can be drawn, but it has to be extremely difficult to keep it consistent with itself and simultaneously tell an interesting story. Trek is unique in that its’ internal history has been so carefully scrutinized by its’ own fans to the point in consistency with canon has taken precedence over telling compelling, thought-provoking, and revelant stories. Personally, I think it’s unfair to attribute RDM’s concerns about Trek writing to poor imagination. As a writer yourself, you are no doubt aware of the difficulties involved in writing a story with a message that attracts an interested audience.
I apologize right now if you felt that I was casting dispersions upon you, but I felt your comment (and this is just my opinion) had a “how hard can it be?” tone. As a writer yourself, you know how hard it can be.

75. JNG - June 13, 2008

Reality check: Ron Moore is a pothead and his show’s ratings aren’t exactly embarrassing what Enterprise was getting when it got canceled. He didn’t save Trek or figure anything out; he walked off Voyager in a huff because he fundamentally can’t work within the episodic television structure that TOS made a cornerstone of Trek, and prefers to think that his soap operas are science fiction because he occasionally writes [TECH] in scripts (but, he complained, too often) and doing stuff like having the Battlestar characters drive Earth trucks on Caprica.

He writes character dynamics pretty well most of the time, but for him to sit there and evaluate the whole Trek concept like he is fit to judge it somehow seems ridiculous to me. The mewling about how hard it is to track continuity is particularly laughable. There are an awful lot of people who don’t have trouble keeping tabs on this, and they aren’t getting paid to do it, either.

76. warptrek - June 13, 2008

#74 Thank you, JNG. At least I am not the only one.
The problem with Moore for me anyway, was his obsession with the personal BS of the individual characters from week to week which to me detracted greatly (or perhaps distracted is a better word?) from the fact that right past those bulkheads is an ENTIRE QUADRANT OF THE GALAXY left to explore.
You can especially see it in later seasons of TNG. Wesley has a crush on a new girl. Troi is horny for some ambassador with bumps on his head, Picard goes home and buries the hatchet with his brother. Don’t get me wrong, some of that stuff makes for good tv drama, but not necessarily good Trek. At least GR would never send the Enterprise back to Earth in TOS nor would some character romance be not intrinsically part of the plot as it was with TNG a lot of the time.

77. Jim Nightshade - June 13, 2008

UHMMMMMM Sometimes I gotta Wonder…..We are all Trek fans right???? Right??????? Are we not men? we are devo…Star Trek: Devolution seems to live….So many of you seem to hate so many aspects of Trek…Roddenberry, a god or a demon? What some of you seem to propose and wish for would stop Trek from being Trek….I agree that NONE of the series showed mankind as flawless, perfect or totally utopian….But that core premise is what makes trek trek…that we can and should better ourselves and that we will….maybe it is more boring that way. DS9 was an aberration from the star trek universe. The war…the religion especially….but there were talks of wars in TOS and treaties and conflicts. What makes anyone think Roddenberry wouldn’t approve of a war in a certain context he certainly would have….Now the religious aspects of DS9—-While we can still relate to Bajor and their religions and gods and vedics etc….it did make them seem SLIGHTLY less modern in DS9…..Orb time traveling anyone? Although I loved that episode for the homage it paid to tos, the plot device was a lil hard to take….and Ds9s ending where Sisko goes off to commune with the gods….to fulfill the prophecy? Aww Cmon…Sisko was so independent he could hardly work under Starfleet….His ultimate salvation would have been to REJECT the gods and live his own life….with his own love, his own family….I think Roddenberry would have had the most trouble with those aspects of DS9, not so much the war….

78. Schiefy - June 13, 2008

@#67–“If the next new episode of BSG featured Callie, and had a very good story about her, you know darn well that everyone here that boo-hoo’s “continuity” would be saying “wait a minute- she’s dead. How can this be a story about her being alive?”.”

Actually, Abrams and company manage to find lots of way to keep actors employed by allowing them to play “dead” characters…:)

(Hmmmmm….so why is there a problem including Shatner as a “dead” Kirk?)

79. Dom - June 14, 2008

JNG (74) Enterprise was on a minor network. BSG is on an even more minor one, not to mention it’s an international co-pro, so it’s not just targetted at a US audience anyway. It’s shown exclusively on satellite in the UK and Sky markets it heavily! The rest of your allegations are potentially libellous.

Anyway, on to other stuff!

When I first watched Moore’s BSG – something I held off from doing for years, as I didn’t fancy any show written by a TNG writer – I was blown away! BSG is the sci-fi show I have waited my whole life to see. Even as a kid watching and adoring TOS and its spin-off films I wondered what a remake could be like. In my head, it looked like BSG does! It’s like Ron Moore looked into my head and pulled out my perfect sci fi series. Even the music in BSG is quirky and different, the way TOS had wonderful, psychedelic mixes of guitars and orchestra. All neo-Trek had rubbish music (except for when Ron Jones was let loose on an episode!)

Back in the 80s and 90s, again, still only in my teens, I got so frustrated with the neo-Treks. I felt, philosophically, that they were a huge misstep. It’s intriguing that there ***was*** intended to be conflict in TNG, though. Read David Gerrold’s Encounter at Farpoint novelisation and compare the scenes with the TV version. A prime example is the scene where Picard tells Beverly Crusher that he had been the one preventing her assignment on the Enterprise. In the TV version, they’re both very placid about it. In Gerrold’s version, they have a blazing row. Same dialogue, different interpretation. EaF, in book form genuinely has a TOS Star Trek feel about it. Had TNG been like the novelisation, it would have been a much better show.

I never bought into all that utopian BS. In years to come, if there’s a TNG remake, I suspect it won’t either. TOS showed humans working together, but it didn’t make them perfect. A human society like that shown in TNG scares the hell out of me. Under the surface a human society so ‘perfect’ would have to have engaged in massive violence and suppression of the population, genetic engineering and behavioural ‘modification’ programs. And they’d have to continue to do it. Not once in TNG did we see a rock star or a controversial artist. No one did drugs. No one was gay. No one was even remotely racist. No one was an iconoclast. No one was privately religious. No one had drink problems. The only way that could happen is by some form of brutal Orwellian control.

The trouble with later Treks, also, was that they mostly played it safe. Even DS9, which was at times visibly straining at the leash, couldn’t quite take that leap into being truly different.

Voyager was sold to us as a ‘different’ Trek: new alien races, no Starfleet or Federation blah blah blah. But, swiftly, the entire Alpha Quadrant seemed to be popping in for a cup of tea. And how many shuttlecraft did that supposedly tiny science vessel have?!!! It was more of the same old 1980s-style TNG with a new paint job, being sold as 1990s TV. They even insisted on keeping it in synch with the movie series and DS9!

You have a ship, 70 years away from Federation space, cut off and under-resourced, half of its crew criminals. The makers had the opportunity to tell the story of the ship’s journey back across that 70 years. People would have married, had children, died. Those children and their children would have been commanding the ship by the end of the series. Voyager was an opportunity to tell a truly epic decades-spanning story, but it played safe within its 80s conventions and became TNG-lite!

I’ll be interested to see what Ron Moore thinks of JJ Abrams’s Trek and to hear about his set visit. If Abram’s treatment Trek is half as good as Moore’s treatment of BSG, it’ll be amazing!

80. me - June 14, 2008

“See, to my mind it was the conflict between the two mindsets (Roddenberry et al’s utopianism and Moore’s more pessimistic outlook) that made TNG into good drama. Creative conflict is always good, because you end up with something better than either camp could have come up with on its own.”

Exactly.

And hey, it is good that we have the “utopian” TNG on the one hand and the “dark” DS9 on the other hand. There are some people who like to watch utopians, that offer hope and a better future, and there are some people who like it dark and violent. I sometimes are pissed off by the utopian then I watch DS9, sometimes I am pissed off that in ever modern series everything has to be dark and bad (the world also has good parts) or is without any message, then I watch TNG.

Star Trek offers both. Star Trek has both for both feelings, for both kind of people, for both days, when u want something dark and when u want something bright.

That makes it very difficult for other series, because Star Trek already showed every aspect you could show, the dark, the bright, the story/message in the center of the episode, the character (development) in the center of the episode, stand-alone episodes as well as story arcs . Star Trek offers everything. And that’s good.

81. KerryT - June 14, 2008

I have viewed R Moore involvement as the end of the style of Star Trek that I prefer. He opened the forbidden Pandora’s Box & through out G Roddenbery’s Box. GR Box is nobler & is what truly matters & is what brings about true Change. I’m not an elitist, I just recognize what makes a true difference for the better. Star Trek should have applied writers that could live up to the tall task of GR Box while still having wonderful character development. When that directive was abandoned, Star Trek progressed into mundane when compared to the high principles it had set.

There is a time & place for everything & I feel Star Trek was not either for R Moore. He is exceptionally talented. I am an absolute fan of Battlestar Galactica. The stories and development are wonderful. That is his calling.

Give me BSG for entertainment & Star Trek for entertainment & bettering myself. But don’t mix the two. There’s a place at the table for both.

82. Eric Cheung - June 14, 2008

74. I can’t speak for BSG’s current ratings but it was embarrassing Enterprise when both had new episodes. I like Enterprise, but BSG has simply been superior on all fronts.

Moore didn’t “walk off of Voyager in a huff” because Voyager was episodic, or because of any qualities it may have shared with TOS, he walked off for personal and professional reasons that had to do with an unhealthy work environment at the show. By many accounts it was not a happy place to work. It was the first show since TAS that was on a network so there was the layers of the studio, the network, and Rick Berman, who came more from a production background than a writer’s background to fight, where DS9 had less layers and could work under the radar for exactly the same reason Voyager seemed to get the suits’ attention.

He has far more credibility to evaluate the franchise than any of us. He’s been a fan his whole life and then a writer and producer for Trek. He’s seen both sides. Perhaps he’s too close to be objective about Trek from the 90s, but hey so are most of us that love it. He’s grateful for his time with Trek, but now with the distance of time and experience he has certainly earned the credibility to comment on what makes good writing, and by extension good Trek (and it always has to be in that order because good writing will always lead to good Trek if all other factors are equal).

TOS is of course the cornerstone of Trek, as Ronald D. Moore repeatedly says in this interview. He laments that Gene Roddenberry’s universe became more about some abstract philisophical projection of a more perfect future and less about the fun, adventure-filled stories where the characters were front and center. The audience wanted to learn about Spock, they wanted to hear themselves through McCoy, and they wanted to enjoy Kirk’s boldness. Moore celebrated that about Trek as he lamented the constrictions that made such traits much harder to render, if not impossible.

And to what end does a storyteller write exploration? Exploration sounds a lot like a much maligned, even if neccessary, writer’s device: exposition. Exploration without knowing how it changes the characters is just a collection of flashing stars, nebulae, and numbers on a stellar cartography chart. Perhaps Ellie Arroway said it best in Contact “They should have sent a poet.”

All, yes ALL, storytelling must service the characters above anything else–before it’s a genre, before it’s a plot synopsis, before it’s Star Trek. All of those things are merely a context in which to set a story. We all love that context, that massive richly textured world, but what makes it engaging isn’t a list of dates on Memory Alpha, it’s watching there waiting to see what McCoy will say to Spock and how Spock will prove McCoy wrong; it’s watching Kirk invoke the rules of poker over chess in his strategy over Balok; it’s taking that list of dates and using them as a tool to send Khan on a vengeful rampage which kills Spock and forces Kirk to learn to cope with the death of his best friend, forcing him to sacrifice his ship and his career, and lose his son, so that he can bring Spock back, and journeying through time and space to save Earth and find redemption.

76. Sisko joined the prophets in the end because he was going home. Besides being part prophet anyway, he grew to fall in love with the planet he grudgingly took as a job while coping with the grief he still had following Wolf 359.

From the episode “Destiny” to “Acession” in which he almost loses his status as Emissary to “Rapture” he comes to embrace his role as a Emissary and accept it as his destiny. It was long forshadowed (with the hindsight that we have since the finale) that his destiny would lie with them. He knew his future would be a permanent relationship with the Bajoran people in no small part because he bought a home there.

83. Ty Webb - June 14, 2008

The Roddenbery Box, wasn’t it fans themselves that kept telling Gene about being his being a visiaonary and he started to believe it. SO really, it’s the fans fault.

84. CW - June 14, 2008

“I never bought into all that utopian BS. In years to come, if there’s a TNG remake, I suspect it won’t either. TOS showed humans working together, but it didn’t make them perfect. A human society like that shown in TNG scares the hell out of me. Under the surface a human society so ‘perfect’ would have to have engaged in massive violence and suppression of the population, genetic engineering and behavioural ‘modification’ programs. And they’d have to continue to do it. Not once in TNG did we see a rock star or a controversial artist. No one did drugs. No one was gay. No one was even remotely racist. No one was an iconoclast. No one was privately religious. No one had drink problems. The only way that could happen is by some form of brutal Orwellian control.”

Wow.
I’ve been pondering many of your ponts for quite a while now, yet you have managed to successfully write them down in a coherant manner.

But its true: we have a dominant social/political ideology that seems to need and feed off of what they perceive to be a great, grand progressive society where everyone decides to give up religion and voluntarily become Ted Kennedy Democrats, who enlist in the Federation to defend socialism.

No-frakkin-way. The only way to achieve the everyone get along in perfect tolerance and open-mindedness koom-bay-ya harmony is through conquering other ideologies, ways of thought and even ways of life. I have to wonder how many re-education camps were erected before Captain Archer… or even Captain Kirk. Were there massive police state crackdowns ala Waco or even the Texas poligamists- all in the name of “protecting children, of course” while ignoring greater social dilemmas like teen drug use, teen pregnancy and teen abortion. But the left likes teen pregnancy and teen abortion. But the left doesn’t like religion or morality- despite their false claims of “diversity” and “open-mindedness”.

Just look at places that are ran by more progressive thought: there is no free reign of speech, thought or expression. They freely edit and censor posts and threads. They call it “maintaining civility”, and they controll what is and isn’t civil. They controll. And they either represent Trek, or Trek represents them, but either way, it doesn’t happen without controlling others.

Welcome to a more optimistic future.

85. Drew - June 14, 2008

Anthony, you do a fantastic job.

86. Anthony Pascale - June 14, 2008

@82 Ty Webb
Well there is some truth to that, but it was also the media and various books about Trek, etc. I think the key to what Moore said is that Roddenberry allowed this ‘building a future’ thing to trump ‘making a TV show’. And in a way that is what so many of the debates are about. On one hand you have people who seem to fight for the integrity of the Star Trek universe, and others who fight for the objective of creating entertaining hours of TV drama.

As a writer Moore says that these things came into conflict both in terms of the Roddenberry Box and eventually in terms of the continuity. One cannot discount what he says as he was someone ‘in the trenches’. And I have spoken to other writers and producers on Trek who have talked about the same thing.

I love the Trek universe and enjoy a good continuity reach around as much as the next guy, but I also have to agree that at its heart Star Trek is ‘just a TV show’ (and movie franchise) and so it must always put being compelling as a form of entertainment first and foremost.

87. Anthony Pascale - June 14, 2008

RE: Audio comments
as for the comments on the audio thanks for the input. I always record my interviews on audio for my notes, as it is impossible to take notes fast enough. In this case I decided to use both, but I will look into finding a better recording medium to make them better for broadcast.

RE: Podcast
Yes TrekMovie is working on a podcast and it will include interviews. stay tuned!

And your welcome Drew and everyone.

We plan on doing more of these retrospective interviews over the next year. Although TrekMovie is the leading site for what is going on in Trek today and in the future, we should also do more to look at where Trek has been over the last 40 years

88. The Underpants Monster - June 14, 2008

I think the best storytelling happens when there is a balance – between optimism and pessimism, between pacifism and miliatrism, between comedy and drama, between thought and action, between untopia and dystopia. To me, TNG reflected that, and I think that’s why it had the wide, multi-audience appeal some of the other shows didn’t. Robbenberry’s philosophy represented one end of the spectrum and Moore’s another, and they ended up with something really good because of that.

89. MC1701B - June 14, 2008

Ladies and gentlemen,

These are the facts:

What set TOS apart from Voyage, LIS, et. al. to begin with wasn’t just the quality of the writing and acting. IT WAS THE CONTINUITY. The Enterprise didn’t run on warp drive one week and chemical rockets the next due to writer’s convenience. The writers wrote to the show’s bible, or they got rewritten, or the script got tossed. Period.

William Goldman’s second rule of Hollywood: Screenplays Are Structure.

RDM is a smart man, and he’s forgotten more about US history than I’ll ever learn, but his pattern on every project is the same: he gets hired to adapt someone else’s work, cashes the checks, but gets frustrated at the structure and tries to undermine it. (Or in the case of BSG, succeeds.) If he doesn’t like GR or GL’s box, he should build his own.

One wonders why he doesn’t….

90. Closettrekker - June 14, 2008

I think Star Trek (TOS) was visionary, whether it was intended to be or not. It may very well have been intended as a “Space Western”, and pretty much just another setting for entertaining stories, but it still depicted a future for humanity that DID NOT end in a nuclear holocaust. People WOULD eventually put aside their political differences once they realized that they were NOT alone in the universe. That was important then because people in the 1950’s and 60’s were actually conditioned to live their lives with that dark mushroom cloud over the horizon. It is important now because religious and political differences still result in killing, maiming, and attempted genocide in the name of those differences.

My point is, the vision IS important. However, Moore is absolutely correct. Star Trek still needs good stories. The characters still have to resonate with audiences, and if they are too “perfect”, how will anyone identify with them? Moreover, this future society still has to be somewhat believable. I’m okay with the suspension of disbelief when it comes to technology, but Gene probably went overboard some when it comes to individuals all marching to the same beaten drum in his later, often revisionist view of the phenomena he helped create.

TOS did not depict human beings as perfect, as Ron Moore pointed out, but it did give us (as an audience) a look at the prospect of a triumphant and brighter future. I think that was important, and still is. While we may never progress beyond our own personal flaws as individuals, we certainly can continue to progress as a society.

If the future caretakers of Trek have to dispose of some restrictive aspects of canon to still get the message across through the telling of good stories centered around interesting and dynamic characters, then so be it. Bring it on.

91. Closettrekker - June 14, 2008

#88—-I have to call you on the notion that TOS is set apart by its “continuity”, of all things. Even the basic timeline of events was hardly consistent in TOS, and the Enterprise was often capable of sustaining outrageous speeds when compared to the limitations mentioned in other episodes. TOS was about telling good stories involving great characters, and it was certainly not a slave to any “continuity” or imaginary canon. Who cares if Khan is said to have been asleep aboard the Botany Bay for 200 years, and that departure date is given as 1996, and then that is completely contradicted in TWOK? For that matter, while TWOK confirms the TOS-era as being in the 23rd Century, and Khan says again that he was in power on Earth 200 years ago, he again says 1996. Who cares? Continuity is overrated, and it never became a big deal in the production of Trek until the TNG-era. Since then, it has become constrictive. Imagine hiring a writer to work on a Star Trek series right now. Is he to be expected to watch every single episode and movie first before he can be allowed to write a script? Or will he have to write a story with two or three “expert” canonistas looking over his shoulder, making sure he doesn’t contradict something written 40 years before? Moreover, who decides which direction to go in when canon has already been compromised? It’s all very ridiculous. Just write a good story that will entertain me.

92. Occuprice - June 14, 2008

88.

He is creating his own box. His 100% original show, Virtuality, premieres this fall. Caprica, which I would argue has even less of a connection to TOS BSG than BSG does, also airs this fall. He is also working on a scifi movie trilogy that is in the stages of being written and finding a buyer for it.

He also worked on shows between Trek and BSG, such as Roswell and Carnevale. They are original as well.

So, I wouldn’t go saying that he can do is repackage other people’s work. Everyone gets started on an existing series (for him it was Trek), and just because his greatest success to date has been BSG, which is as different from TOS BSG as salt is to sugar, does not mean that all he can do is repackage.

93. Dom - June 15, 2008

In the present day’s remake factory culture, Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica defines what a good remake is. He’s taken a fun, if cheesy and silly 1970s science fiction show that was based on a superb premise and delivered a series that manages to address that premise in a radically different way, yet remain very faithful to the original show.

I reckon Hollywood would do a lot better to look at films and TV shows that failed in the past because they didn’t deliver on a great concept and remake those!

94. Mammalian Verisimilitude - June 15, 2008

20> Also, outside of comic books and religions…

LOL. The juxtaposition of these is most amusing

95. Mammalian Verisimilitude - June 15, 2008

57> As I watch BSG, I wonder what Ron would have done to Voyager if he had been the showrunner. I think he would have had Voyager not look pristine after seven years, and also would have killed off half the cast. It probably would have been a better show.

Sounds about right:

http://www.lcarscom.net/rdm1000118.htm
[RDM:] […] But on VOYAGER, who cares? We want the holodeck to run so we can go do period pieces, and we can do dress up and we can do fun adventures on the holodeck, and we don’t want to give that up. Okay, but don’t try telling me at the same time that you are really out scraping by and barely making it out there on the frontier, when none of their hair is out of place, and their uniforms are pristine, and the bridge is clean every week.”

Moore laughs, “What is the difference really between Voyager and the rest of the fleet? When that ship comes home, it will blend right in. You won’t even know the difference. They haven’t personalized the ship in any way. It’s still the same kind of bare metal, military look that it had at the beginning. If you were trapped on that ship and making your way home, for years on end, wouldn’t you put something up on the walls? Would you put a plant or two somewhere in a corridor? Wouldn’t you try to make it a little more livable? […]

96. Nelson - June 15, 2008

re: post 87 and Podcast: Anthony, if you were addressing my question, then thank you! I look forward to the Podcast that will be coming.

97. c0MmODoRe g0oFbAlL - June 17, 2008

Whenever I watch an ep. of Trek and it totally blows my mind, it is always written by Ron D. Moore. He is IMHO the greatest writer in Trek’s long history.

I’m stunned that he is the one most responsible for the continuity of the Trek Canon and now feels it is Trek’s most limiting factor. I see his point, but, as a writer, I see the Trek Canon as a fertile universe still waiting to be plucked. As Manny Coto did so brilliently in ENT’s 4th season.

I can see where Moore tried to rewrite Trek history in First Contact. Wiping the slate clean can be acceptable, IF it is wrtten right.

I refused to watch the new BSG UNTIL if found out the Ron Moore was the show runner. Now I’m utterly infatuated.

As I said in the D.C. Fontana thread, Write On Ron D. Moore!

98. AMA - June 17, 2008

On the topic of too much continuity…..

I think that continuity is one of the more interesting aspects of Star Trek. From a viewers perspective it doesn’t matter to me which alien race attacks the planet; it’s the compelling drama of the story that sucks me in. Additionally, with a ‘verse as large and complex as Trek, there are many extra details and history to refer to, thus making the entire experience richer and more real. (look at LOTR for another example of a detail rich enviornment)

I can certainly understand Moore’s point of view. As a writer it’s not as fun or free to write stories when you have to constantly check your facts, but seriously…. give me a break. Are you writing Trek scripts for your own satisfaction, or are you writing them for an audience? Or are you really writing them to keep an audience watching long enough to stick around through the commercial breaks? Mr. Moore, you’ve done a great many things in the sci fi community, however on this matter, I must respectfully disagree with you. Star Trek continuity is not in excess, in fact it is one of the subtly rich characteristics that sets it apart from most other sci fi.

99. Izbot - June 18, 2008

Just a comment on how TNG was a nightmare to write because there was no conflict:

Despite this difficult mandate, Moore and others made it work. For those of us who have to deal with the worst aspects of humanity on a regular basis, being able to escape into a world where humans get along so harmoniously really helps make life bearable!

100. sjt - August 15, 2008

after gettin here 2 months later than all of u and reading the interview and all the post, i would say that i can understand alot of the problems mentioned. but look at it like this, if just for a momentwhat happened after 9-11? all americans white, black, asian, hispanic and all others in this country were united as ONE. even most of the WORLD was standing with us. with that said in star trek world there was a WW3 in the mid 21st century. dont you think that such an event would bring the survivors of such a war a sobering realization and maybe put aside finally the squabbles of different religions and the need to be richer or more powerful than others. then with first contact coming shortly after and learning that man is not the center of everything that maybe people could achieve this utopian civilization. or fight WW4 with sticks and stones

101. Macht Star Trek XI das Canon als Fan-Konsens kaputt? - Seite 32 - SciFi-Forum - April 4, 2009

[…] notion. It just seems like you want freedom. You want Trek to be fun. So make it fun. Quelle: Trekmovie.com Ich denke das beschreibt das Problem ganz gut und zeigt warum ein Reboot durchaus angebracht […]

102. Vad är Psykoterapi - April 9, 2011

I enjoy your writing style truly loving this web site .

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.