Exclusive Interview: Ron Moore – Fighting The Trek Clichés | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive Interview: Ron Moore – Fighting The Trek Clichés June 21, 2008

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

In the second part of the exclusive TrekMovie.com interview with Ronald D. Moore [see part 1], we talk about how on TNG he railed against the Trek clichés, how on DS9 he and the team were given more latitude, how he wished it went differently with Voyager and how his time with Trek influenced his new show, Battlestar Galactica
[AUDIO + Transcript below]


LISTEN: Ron Moore TrekMovie.com Interview – Part 2

(sorry about the buzz)



TrekMovie: A lot of scripts you wrote…when you look at "Data’s Day" in the end the Enterprise loses, it is not a winning situation to get duped. And in "Rejoined" you have the kiss, and "Family" there is no sci-fi story, and [in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume"] you have one of the characters suddenly having this dark past. Did you have a lot of resistance from above to do these kinds of breaking-the-mold notions?

Ron Moore: There was a bit of a fight. I always sort of always fighting to take stories into darker directions or go out on more ambiguous notes or make the Enterprise lose occasionally. A lot of it was in service of doing things differently. I think I was looking at molds to break. We were doing so many episodes a year, twenty six a year which seems unfathomable…

TrekMovie: Well you are doing twenty [with Battlestar Galactica]

Ron Moore: Hey let me tell you, those extra six make a big difference. [laughs] Somewhere around show eighteen your eyes would start rolling into the back of your head on Trek. For me show eighteen was always the backbreaker, you were going ‘oh my god we’ve got eight more to do…how are we going to get eight more?’ It was killing ya.

TrekMovie: Just slap some latex on some foreheads and you’ll figure it out

Ron Moore: Oh yeah it was nuts. You were doing so many episodes. We had this big board that were the Star Trek clichés. After every pitch session, because we were taking endless amounts of writers coming to pitch, the writers would all sort of gleefully go to the cliché board and we would log how many of the Trek clichés we heard that day: Data becomes man, Data becomes god, they discover a planet and the planet is alive…there were just all these categories and we would just tally each one to keep ourselves sane. Because of that and because there were so many Trek clichés and so many patterns doing shows, I was always looking for the show that was different. I was looking for the one we hadn’t done. Well we hadn’t done one where the Enterprise loses, that alone makes me want to do it. We haven’t done the one where we it ends on a darker note. We haven’t done the one where Picard kills the guy instead of saves the guy. I was always the one that wanted to do something different and as a result I was always usually the one getting in the most fights. I was the guy in the room who was always arguing and fighting and kicking cans around trying to do something a little different and trying to take the show in directions where sometimes the show couldn’t go. The showrunners were right sometimes. I was just trying to take us to a place where Star Trek couldn’t comfortably go.  

Riker faces a moral dilemma and ends up in the brig in Moore’s 7th season
TNG episode "The Pegasus"

TrekMovie: Do feel that Battlestar [Galactica] is a natural successor to Deep Space Nine?

Ron Moore: I think there is certainly a lineage to it. A lot of the things that I do in Battlestar had their birth in discussions in the writers room in Deep Space. Things we said we couldn’t do. Character turns that we could never really do. We were always try and roughen up and screw up the characters on Deep Space whenever possible and you can only go so far and do so much with their flaws. It got me thinking in terms of flawed characters and being much edgier and much braver in terms of what an audience can tolerate from their main cast and what it meant to write a war series. Our war against The Dominion in Deep Space and limits in how far we can go with that and how ugly it can be and how difficult it could be and how far you can go to deal with the characters in a state of perpetual war like that and ya a lot of my thinking started there.

TrekMovie.com: You guys were kind of just left on your own and kind of the weird people, with Deep Space Nine

Ron Moore: Yah we kind of prided ourselves on being the bastard stepchildren of the Trek franchise. We were the only one that truly different. Every other series was essentially about a starship boldly going somewhere, and we weren’t. We were proud of that. And we were kind of proud we didn’t get the same publicity and that we were the forgotten ones. It was something we sort of wore as a badge of honor amongst the writers. …. I think they missed an opportunity by not continuing to diversify what the franchise overall meant. You could do a starship show, then you did this radically different space station show. OK then there could have been another version that was even radically different from the previous two. It was unfortunate that they went back to it being just a starship again and sort of doing another riff on The Original Series or Next Gen.

TrekMovie: You mean with Voyager and Enterprise?

Ron Moore: Voyager and Enterprise — they are both essentially the same format. I mean you mix up the crews, you mix up the sort of fundamental mission of it all in each show but you are still getting back to the notion that Star Trek equals a starship going someplace with a big viewscreen and that was what Trek had to be and I felt that we had proved that it didn’t have to be that and that to me implied that it could be many other things too. I always wanted the franchise to try and figure out what those other things might be.

Moore’s 6th season DS9 episode "Waltz", takes place mostly in a cave focusing on the characters of Sisko, Dukat (and Dukat’s inner demons)

TrekMovie: Much has been said about how after Deep Space Nine you moved over, very briefly, to Voyager and then just left, and possibly on unpleasant terms. So what happened between you and Brannon and…

Ron Moore: That’s the past. It is all water under the bridge and I don’t want to talk about it in any great detail. Essentially I went over. I probably shouldn’t have gone over. I probably should  have left the nest at that point and made a clean break. I went over with different expectations than that show was prepared to do creatively and internally. And Brannon and I had a falling out and a creative clash and a personal clash and I just decided I didn’t want to work like this. I had always been proud of the fact that I tenure at Star Trek there were only two days I didn’t want to show up at work in the ten years of being there. Then I was at Voyager and found I didn’t want to go into work any day, so I just quit because I didn’t want to work like that.

TrekMovie: You and Brannon are OK now?

Ron Moore: Yah, absolutely. That was a long time ago. We’ve made up over the years. We don’t work together anymore so we don’t have the kind of relationship that we once did, but that is mostly because our career paths have gone in different directions.

TrekMovie: On Voyager and Battlestar, it is a ship on its way to Earth with no infrastructure, there are some parallels. Would ‘Ron Moore’s Voyager’ be like Battlestar, if you were the showrunner?

Ron Moore: Yah…probably…when I was on my brief tenure on Voyager and I was starting to think in terms of what I wanted to do, I remember sitting with the writing staff and saying ‘I really think…that when Voyager gets damaged it should get damaged, we should stop repairing the ship, the ship should be broken down more and devolving a little bit more.’ One of the ideas I had is that they should start developing their own culture within the starship and letting go of Starfleet protocols and stop thinking of themselves as Starfleet people on some level, even though they still wear the uniform and still try to adhere to the regulations. I thought it would be interesting that by the time this ship got back to Earth, that it didn’t even belong at Earth anymore. That it sort of had become its own culture, it had formed its own civilization which was dissimilar to that which they had left behind…Now that you mention this there was somebody, I don’t think it was me, somebody had pitched the notion of them having to guard some alien ships they had encountered. It was a convoy and through some plot I can’t remember that they had agreed to protect and Sheppard through some hostile star systems on their journey. And they were going to be the warship tending the little convey of civilian ships. And I was really taken with it and really liked the idea and thought it would be cool and it was sort of Galactica. We might have even mentioned Galactica….but to your question, If I had been the showrunner from the beginning I probably would have sent it into a darker direction and sent it into a more harrowing journey yes. And made them more on the run and more less of a pretty journey getting back, and at the same time, I probably would have felt compelled to stay within certain  boundaries of what Trek was and how Trek had established itself. So I don’t think I could have taken Voyager to the places I have taken Galactica, even if I did have the reins.

Seven reunites with her former unimatrix pals in Ron Moore’s sole Voyager script "Survival Instinct" (Moore also co-wrote the story for "Barge of the Dead")

TrekMovie: Turning that around. On Galactica you guys have the no anomalies no aliens rule. Do you guys ever sit around, I know there are a lot of DS9 guys in the writers room, and think ‘god I just thought of a great anomaly’ or ‘wouldn’t it be great if we ran into this species’? Does that Trek DNA ever come back?

Ron Moore: No I don’t every remember it coming up like that. [laughs] I think what has come up every once in a while is sort of we will have a problem between us and the Cylons and maybe we start talking about a tech solution to get out of it or a tech way of dealing with it. We usually shy away from them, but sometimes we go forward and try and make it as anti-Star Trek as possible. Sort of like when Sharon plugged herself into the CIC computer system [BSG: "Flight of the Phoenix"] as a way of warding off the attack. That was about as techie as we wanted to get and it was sort of a Star Trek-esque way of getting out of a problem, but by and large I don’t remember us ever saying ‘what if we met an alien race’ or ‘what if we ran into a subspace anomaly’ or anything like that. It seems like we have all been freed and are sort of grateful we don’t have to do that anymore. 

TrekMovie: We know everything about how the Enterprise and all the various ships work. We know the names of all the components, how the warp drive works, we have seen the schematics, and there really has never really been any explanation about how anything works in Battlestar…for good reason. When you finally went to the engine room of the Pegasus [BSG: "The Captain’s Hand"] it looked like something out of a World War II battleship, almost steam powered. Were you saying ‘this is nothing like the engine room of the Enterprise’ was that a conscious effort?

Ron Moore: Oh yah. We had discussions about it. I said ‘It should not look anything like the engine room of the Enterprise.’ It should not have lots of blinky lights. It should feel very hands on – valves, gauges, lots of things to press and pull. It should be a hot, sweaty place to work. Part of it is justified by the fact that the Colonials had gone with a very retro technology in dealing with how the Cylons had taken advantage of them in the first Cylon War. So that gave us a lot of freedom to sort keep playing with phones with cords on them and things were really hands on. It was a great aesthetic to bring into a spaceship because so many spaceships had just become this flat panels of blinking lights, and they had become very boring and very sterile and I wanted the engine room to feel more like engine rooms that I had been in in the Navy. When you go down into a destroyer’s engine room it was a hot noisy difficult place to work. It wasn’t a pleasant place you wanted to hang out in and talk with Scotty. It was a place you really wanted to get out of as soon as you could and that is how I wanted the Battlestar engine room to feel as well.

No giant glowing warp core in the Battlestar engine room

TrekMovie: You mentioned the Navy. Nick Meyer introduced a lot of Naval feeling into Trek with Star Trek II, which seemed to go away again in the Next Gen era. You have injected a lot of Navy into Battlestar Galactica. Did you try bring some Navy into Next Gen?

Ron Moore: Oh yah all the time…there were all sorts of little protocols and little traditions I would try to inject whenever possible. Like in "Data’s Day" just the fact that the day begins with Riker coming on and relieving Data’s watch and Data has to report to him the state of the ship and then the formality of "I relieve you sir" "I stand relieved" and Data walking off and the sense of a new watch coming on board. I started referring to watches and bridge officers and being certified as a deck officer. Just all those things I wanted to infuse the ship with because that is how Navy ships run and that is the tradition all the way back to the beginning. It was set up as a Navy command structure and Gene [Roddenberry] always mentioned Horatio Hornblower as one of the inspirations for Captain Kirk and I always thought of the Naval lineage as an important component of Star Trek.

Data is relieved in Moore’s TNG episode "Data’s Day"

More Moore coming up
The final part of the interview coming up later this week will discuss Moore’s Trek feature films, the new Star Trek film and Moore’s new TV and film projects



1. jon1701 - June 21, 2008

Great Interview.

2. MC1701B - June 21, 2008

“I think I was looking at molds to break.”

So all those arguing with me in the previous RDM thread may apologize whenever ready.

3. CmdrR - June 21, 2008

I won’t slam Voyager, but I think Moore could have added a lot. I’ve heard his comments about keeping the damage and the few times they did that from week to week in Voyager it added a layer of tension to the story. Seeing the BSG in recent eps, and especially the once gorgeous Air Force One, it really makes you wonder how many jumps they have left before the wheels fall off. That’s cool. I also remember a few, not many, eps where they took characters to the dark side. Tuvok disobey’s Starfleet regulations and trades a database for something or other. Neelix tells Tuvok he’s a stuck up ass (‘Rise’.) Better than the gnawingly sacharin eps that end with Janeway literally planning a tea party.

Anyway — I loves me some good BSG. Glad Moore has made his statement. Have no idea what he’s still going to turn out.

4. Thomas - June 21, 2008

I would be very interested to see RDM’s take on Voyager. There definitely would have been a greater sense of danger to the series that voyager never really had. It’s interesting to consider. I look forward to part 3.

5. Spoctor McKirk - June 21, 2008

That Voyager convoy idea would have been very cool, but very “un-Trek”. Works well for BG, though.

6. El Ghost Host - June 21, 2008

Awesome job.

7. Rich - June 21, 2008

I think I’m of two minds on “darkening” everything. I enjoy Moore’s Galactica up to a point, but at times the somber, doom and gloom theme can be fatiguing. I don’t think the new Bionic Woman series was any better because it was darker than the original. I appreciate the complexity of the more realistic shows where everything doesn’t end on a happy note, but by the same token, sometimes the good guys do win.

8. J_schinderlin56 - June 21, 2008

I agree that it’s good to explore new directions on trek. But the contenuious notion of Anti- Trek the he has here is just as annoying as the “reset Button” type cliche’s on Voyager.

I like taking a darker feel to some stories, but always taking a “Darker” path in it self seems to me to be a Cilche in and of itself. I totally lost intreast in BSG after the second season. The shakey camera work got old, and the show got too political and too “Dark” for my taste. I know people like it and that’s ok. People like Voyager too.

All I’m saying is that it’s possible to go to far in the other direction too. I tried to watch an episode of BSG a few weeks ago and it just seemed to be a Space Soap Opera.

I’ve always thought DS9 was the best of trek because it was so well rounded. A good mix of charicters v.s Plot, and Light V.S. Dark.

All of my favorite Trek Episodes were written by Ron Moore, but this constant “Dark” “anti-trek” thing is kind of annoying. No alens and no annomalys is just as irritateing as having a new one every week.

Stop hateing on trek already. There’s a reason it’s lasted 40 years.

People like it.

9. Redjac - June 21, 2008

DAMN…What Moore said about Voyager is EXACTLY what I was saying on message boards about Voyager when it was on the air. What a different show it would have been had he been able to get his ideas on film…we might today be talking about a classic series.

10. Jason - June 21, 2008

“I thought it would be interesting that by the time this ship got back to Earth, that it didn’t even belong at Earth anymore. That it sort of had become its own culture, it had formed its own civilization which was dissimilar to that which they had left behind…”

Interesting. Makes me wonder if ‘Galactica’s headed in this direction, especially since I suspect there are still humans left on Caprica (and/or New Caprica) where for some reason I suspect the show will end.

11. J_schinderlin56 - June 21, 2008

P.S. I have a real hard time believeing that somethig that has rusty pipes, valves and steam in the engine room can travel faster than light. It’ like building a Nemonic Memory circut using stone knives and bear skins.

Just doing something because “Trek wouldn’t ” isn’t much of a justification for something in my book.

12. CmdrR - June 21, 2008

J — Well, you liked steam-driven starships in Trek (TWOK after Khan zaps engineering) and Alien. I think BSG just carries some of the more familiar templates a little further. We’re all conditioned by WWII movies and the like. Think about Star Wars and the amazing ‘banking’ tie-fighters? No air in space; how do they turn like that? I have a friend who is bigtime military and laughs at the poured concrete decks on the TOS Enterprise. Again, that’s familiar. It’s interesting when shows try to make it more plausible, but then you have to be careful not to make it dull.

13. Irishtrekkie - June 21, 2008

@11 , i agree with you the battlestar galactica is a bit too retro , but i mean its o.k. i guess its only science fiction , its not like its real like star trek………..i love star trek.

14. BrF - June 21, 2008

Great thoughts on Voyager. Something as simple as the ship getting more beat up and jury-rigged as it went would have been so cool — and would have made so much sense for the story.

15. Kalabro - June 21, 2008

J–no one’s “hating” on Trek; what Moore is saying is that the Trek universe had gotten stale and inured to technobabbly cliches. For example, a show like Voyager, where the ship is tens of thousands of light-years from home with no tech support and what not, *should* have explored the deeper ramifications of being lost. What we got was retreads of TNG episodes, neat, saccharine endings, technobabble that relied far too much on reconfiguring the deflector dish to emit an inverse tachyon burst of polarized anti-neutrinos, and inconsistent character “development.”

Battlestar Galactica, on the other hand, is set in the aftermath of the near-annihilation of the human race: OF COURSE it’s going to be dark. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to argue that this show is too dark–heck, the subject matter isn’t exactly one of sweetness and light! I for one am glad there aren’t latex-covered bumpy headed aliens of the week and spatial anomalies–the focus is where it ought to be: on human drama.

16. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2008

it is worth noting that Moore specifically said he wouldn’t have done VOY exactly like BSG. He wouldn’t go as dark and would have kept Trek conventions.

17. trekee - June 21, 2008

Always interesting to hear Ron Moore talking, especially as he rarely seems to hold back on being critical, even on himself and his shows. The podcast of a Day in the Life BSG episode was quite startling in it’s honesty and the Generations commentary is quite marked in its lack of fake justifications.

I’d not realised he’d fallen out with Brannon Braga though, they seemed like good friends on the Generations commentary so presumably they’ve made up now.

And the idea that Voyager should finish the run back at Earth and find that they don’t belong there after all…. gosh! I’m sure I saw something just like that recently.. ;-)

Thanks for the interview Anthony.

18. Platitude - June 21, 2008

Totally agree with Moore on Voyager. While I’m not saying it’s a terrible show, I think it definitely had the potential to be so much more. For me, it was ultimately just mediocure rehash of TNG.

Great interview. Looking forward to the next part!

19. Tim - June 21, 2008

I love BSG. LOVE! I could watch every episode over and over again. I just think it’s an amazing show and I really am going to miss it when it goes off the air. I’ve said this before however and I just really find RDM condesending of Star Trek. It is what it is. They made some terrible mistakes with Voyager and Enterprise I will admit but I think that the franchise had existed for 40 years because it works. Having said that, if a TV show were to return to the air with the name Star Trek attached to it I would be happy to see it going down a different path than perhaps it has before. But I think it isn’t fair to just rag on all the problems Star Trek has had. BSG has done plenty of things wrong this season especially with the reveal of the final four. I think it is a complete character assassination done to further the plot but it doesn’t mean I like it any less and it just seems to me that Moore goes out of his way to rag on Trek and everything that was wrong with it. Just my humble opinion.

20. sebimeyer - June 21, 2008

Doesn’t seem like anyone would mind if you spilled some hot chocolate in the Pegasus’ engine room, does it?

21. Captain Otter - June 21, 2008

He pretty well summed up why Voyager left me cold. I watched it and it scratched the Trek itch, but it just didn’t ring true. I’m not saying they should have gone to great lengths to darken the tone- but they should have let it be as dark as the premise naturally suggests. For a bunch of homesick people on a ship decades from a Starbase, they were too damn happy, too well adjusted, and had too few problems. I just never bought it.

22. Oregon Trek Geek - June 21, 2008

I love BSG, but like #19 Tim, think it has stumbled a bit in Season 4. But of course I’ll keep watching to the end ! :)

I keep dreaming of a new trek series, Star Trek Next Next Generation, on a future Enterprise with a new letter. I’d love to see RDM run something like that, but not taking it quite as dark as BSG. Perhaps somewhere halfway between the sterile PC of TNG and the rather bleak BSG.

Perhaps if Trek 2009 is successful it can open the way for a new ST series–preferably 80 years or so after TNG.

23. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 21, 2008

I don’t think RDM is being overly-critical of Star Trek necessarily, but like trekee in post # 17 stated, he has a tendency to lean toward self criticism. That would include his approach to the shows and how they were executed. You may also note that he said that he only felt like not going in to work twice in 10 years so I don’t think he was doing it just for the paycheck but because he really enjoyed what he was doing. As a creative person I would imagine that he would naturally want to stir things up and break the mold. As a musician I can relate to this in terms of the improvisations I do. Certainly any soloist would say that we have a vocabulary of riffs and licks that we can rely on to get through a solo but the most satisfaction you can get is when you can rely on the skills you’ve developed like listening to what is going on around you in the band and understanding the chordal harmonics to come up with new and original ideas that are all your own. That is when you know that you are truly creating and not just mimicking. I think in terms of creating stories for Trek and BSG, that’s what RDM is trying to do.

24. Joe Atari - June 21, 2008

Wasn’t aware of the falling out with Braga either, although the two obviously had some very clashing ideas on the direction of the franchise. Gave the later seasons of TNG in particular a very schizophrenic feel from episode to episode.

Makes me wonder how the “transition” of the Tom Paris character to Voyager from Moore’s TNG “First Duty” episode played into this. Lore has it that Robert Duncan McNeill’s character from “First Duty” was written to move to Voyager with the same name and backstory but was changed (after the actor was already hired) to Tom Paris with a slightly altered backstory to deny Moore writing credit (and $$$) for what would ultimately become 171 episodes of Voyager. I wasn’t aware until now that Moore spent ANY time on Voyager, so now I wonder which came first: Moore’s departure from the show over creative differences and the change in the character to accommodate that, or the change in the character which PO’d Moore so he left (ala Alexander Courage when Roddenberry wrote lyrics to the TOS theme and took 50% of his royalties).

The formation of Voyager (with UPN, Genevieve Bujold, creative differences, etc.) might have been the political nadir of the Trek franchise — rivaling the “revolving door” of writers in the early years of TNG. Perhaps it’s amazing Voyager turned out as well as it did.

25. number 3 - June 21, 2008

10 …Ah, yep..my best guess is that BSG goes back to Caprica by the end of the show next year.Love the Show Ron. Frakin Klingons

26. c0MmODoRe g0_oFbAlL - June 21, 2008

Anthony, last week you said you wanted feedback on audio quality. Overall the sound quality was clear and understandable, however the 60mhz cycle hum is a pain.

I would very much like to have more of these interviewes in the future, and video would be awesome!

Thanks for making my favorite Trek writer available to us all.

the g0_obalL fromerly known as Lurker.

27. doc Dave - June 21, 2008

I always thought that Voyager looked better when it was fused with Borg tech. If it worked why dump it? Imagine Voyager picking up bits and pieces along the way.

28. c0MmODoRe g0_oFbAlL - June 21, 2008

#24, I’m a bit outside my Trek expertise here, but Moore came into VOY AFTER DS9 ended.
At the end of TNG the writing staff was split between VOY and DS9. Bragga and Moore, being the most prolific staff writers were made the head writers of those two shows respectively.

The split you refer to above re: Tom Paris is most likely accurate, however I’ve never heard that before. But it is logical.

I think the split started in the brillient 6th season TNG ep. “Frame of Mind,”
penned by Bragga. Moore came up with the idea of making it about a stage play, which made the whole ep. sing. Moore got ZERO credits on that ep. with all credit going to Bragga. Just a guess on my part.

29. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2008

thanks for the feedback on audio

all the moore audio is from the same source….so the next one will have it.

The audio was originally intended for my notes, I record them all and was not originally intending to make them available so this is a bit of an experiment. I will be looking into a better telephone recording function, but phone interviews will always sound kind of crappy

30. c0MmODoRe g0_oFbAlL - June 21, 2008

#27, EXACTLY !!! I never bought that they would dump the borg enhancements, it made no sense.

31. Dr. Spaceman - June 21, 2008


32. MORN SPEAKS - June 21, 2008

-Really interesting interview Anthony, really appreciate what you do.

-I never knew of the conflict on Voyager, very intriguing. I like Voyager alright (my least fav trek), BUT it could have been sooooo much better and Ron could have taken us there.

-BSG is an amazing show. My top 3 favs on TV today are Lost, BSG, and Dexter. I’m such a fan I think I’ll check out Carnivale because I never got the chance.

-My dream would be to a talented screenwriter like Mr. Moore. How about an apprenticeship?!?!?

33. thebiggfrogg - June 21, 2008

8. Darkness for darkness sake may be bad in and of itself and another cliche (though RDM and his cohorts were trying to break TREK cliches, which in many ways were conventional TV cliches: the solution to all the problems in a half hour or an hour. Re: Kirk and crew chuckling and recounting their heroism and success).

But how can Battlestar NOT be dark? 99.9% of humanity has been destroyed. Umm, that whole premise is just a wee bit dark right there. Think of your reaction if almost everyone you knew was dead. Depression. Revenge. Narcissism. Religious extremism. Political opportunism and disagreement. Rationing and resource shortages and the struggle over them. Sure there are optimistic things like uniting and pulling together (“So say we all,” anyone?) but I think the primary reaction would be “shell shock” and the reactions that naturally follow.

I couldn’t get over how on Voyager they would waste tons of power on the holodeck when they had no idea how long it would take to get home (toss that post-TNG Trek cliche out the window–plus how many times can a holodeck go wrong before StarFleet issues a recall of the bloody things?!). And there was no sense of privation on that ship. It always looked like a day at the Mall of America. Neelix cooking vegetables gathered from some planet, puh-leez! (Look at the BSG episode “Water” for this theme done right).

Anyway, everyone has their aesthetic choices, but BSG any other way would just be a kiddie show (which has already been done). I still say it is the best and smartest show on TV, bar none. Your opinion may vary. . .

34. James Dairy - June 21, 2008

I think the idea of DS9 as some mold breaking success is silly. It was terribly dull the first 3 years so they finally needed a ship to fly around in. Then they made it a war show, which is also dull and cliched. Its like DS9 became “Pearl Harbor” of outer space for 4 years. Not to mention the added juvenile love triangles. Feh!

35. thebiggfrogg - June 21, 2008

And I always thought the integration between the Starfleet people and Maquis was a bit too pat (except for the token traitor or two). From the beginning of Voyager you have two conflicting groups. Trek is Trek, so ultimately they have to appeal to their better selves, but it was just a bit too easy. And if the point of Trek is overcoming our baser instincts, shouldn’t we get a glimpse at this being done?

36. cyberghost - June 21, 2008

Laura Roslin Says “earth” and then silence….in a gray dark background, that sums it all up..

I love the show and I think its the best show on TV, to bad we have to wait 6 months or more to see the end.

Ron, with the much improved ratings on the mid season finale, (DVR numbers not even included) this shows the interest in the show, so please give us up to 3 movies….I will watch them and then buy the DVD’s, hopefully blu ray.

I am going ot hate to see the day when there is no BSG to look forward to, but hopefully your new series Caprica will be a hit and even a little dark.

37. Out There - June 21, 2008


Ron Moore joined Voyager at the beginning of its sixth season, so his leaving had nothing to do with the Tom Paris character by that point in time.

I believe Ron’s two main episodes on Voyager were Barge of the Dead with a look at the Klingon after life; and the one where previous members of Seven’s Borg collective try to rejoin with her in order to fix brain damage from a forgotten crash landing on a planet years before.

Not sure about the comment about changing the TNG character’s name in order to not have to pay royalties. I’ve never heard that one before. But what I have heard on an interview is that they wanted to have a character and actor “like” the one on First Duty. They said, “We need to find a Robbie McNeal kind of actor to play the role,” and someone finally said, “Well duh, how about getting Robbie McNeil?”

Not sure if that is true, but I think Rick Berman said that in an interview somewhere. For what it’s worth.

38. steve623 - June 21, 2008

“And there was no sense of privation on that ship. It always looked like a day at the Mall of America.”

This and other similar comments underline what, for me, was the biggest problem with a show that had many problems – everything on Voyager flew in the face of what your instinctive perception of what being in that circumstance would be like. Two groups with widely opposed views, but they get along great. A jillion miles from home with no guarantee of ever getting home, but everyone carries on liek business as usual. No reliable repair or resupply stations, but the ship looked like the Mall of America week in and week out. And on and on. It strained credulity past the breaking point, which was already pretty strained starting with the TNG era and the Roddenberry “evolved humanity” notion that dictated nobody had a conflict with anybody and everybody had their emotional and interpersonal acts comopletely together. That was wholly unbelievable but most everyone suspended their disbelief that far, but lump all of Voyager’s issues on top of it, stir in the cliched storylines, technobabble, reset buttons, and mediocre cast, and it was not a recipe for success.

39. Richard Daystrom - June 21, 2008

Is he Swedish? Did he say “Oh Yah” or “Oh Yeah” Or maybe I have misinterpreted entirely?? Or maybe it doesn’t matter at all and I am being totatally enebriated at this point??? God, when is the new movie coming out!!

40. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 21, 2008

7 & 8 I completely agree with both you. You can’t do bright and cheery all the time and you can’t do doom and gloom all the time either. Ronald Moore’s strong “anti-Trek” stance is one of the reasons I don’t put too much stock in what he has to say about Trek. As you’ve pointed out – there’s a reason it’s lasted 42 years! DS9 did have the perfect mix. Remember the Defiant’s engine room, a simple Trek engine room, the bridge was a classic Trek bridge, and DS9 Ops had a “big viewscreen” as well. Further, a large amount of modern technology, plus technology being researched by both the US (and other) governments, including the DoD (Department of Defense), along with other federal agencies, and private institutions are based on Trek technology. Sorry Moore, you seem to be one of the few “anti-Trek” types out there. As Kate Mulgrew once said “every scientist I’ve ever met loves Star Trek.” (“Beyond the Final Frontier” documentary)

I also have stopped watching BSG. It’s not that great. It got old after the first season. Enough is enough. Stargate is infinitely superior and I continue to watch. I’m looking forward to SG: Atlantis coming back. That show also has it’s share of doom and gloom but there are also plenty of times when the good guys win. Further it’s lasted 15 years and counting and there seem to be plans for yet another spinoff! I think it’s success speaks for itself against BSG.

On a side note, B5 (which lasted 5 seasons, 7 made-for-TV movies) and one 15-episode series (Crusade) is also infinitely superior to BSG. It, like Stargate, had an excellent blend of doom and gloom and bright and cheery. In the end, by the way, the good guys won, and the show had a strong moral message like Trek does. BSG doesn’t seem to have a moral message other than “anything you do in war is okay.” I don’t think that’s a message we should be putting out there. Sorry Moore, in the end, BSG will be another short-lived Sci-Fi show while Trek continues to live on.

P.S. Moore did write many great episodes but I’m glad that the showrunners kept the reins on him. Since he’s “anti-Trek” I think it’s a good thing he no longer has anything to do with Star Trek.

41. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 21, 2008

You want to see a great show on TV, try NCIS. That’s the best show on TV (since Trek isn’t on). BSG is not even close. Another great show is The Unit.

By the way, Trek and NASA have strong ties and many astronomers were inspired to go into the field by Trek. NASA and Trek could be described as best friends; can you say that about any other sci-fi show? The answer to that would be no. To put it simply, Trek is the best, most scientifically accurate, quality show on TV and the best movies ever produced.

BSG = a side note
Trek = A 42+ year phenomenon!

42. stallion - June 21, 2008

I think Enterprise did a better job with continuation and story arc. With the that mini arc starting with Aziti Prime and ending with forgotten. In fact I’m glad to see that damage Enterprise took in Azitii Prime stayed there until the next season.

43. thebiggfrogg - June 21, 2008

I have not seen NCIS as I have been in China for three years, so I won’t claim a fully formed opinion. But I will say that I would be surprised if a 10th generation photocopy of Law and Order (Law Order: New Series 15 and CSI: City of Your Choice) merged with JAG is the best show on TV. I could be wrong, maybe it breaks the mold. And while, the original Law and Order was a great show, by the 40th reiteration of itself and its copies, it is getting. Sort of like Trek by the time of Voyager and Enterprise. Let’s hope JJ and crew breathe some life into XI, otherwise I think it is time for the 42+ phenomenon to take a decade or two break (and this from someone who loved Trek since, pre-ST: TMP reruns).

BTW, I would add B5 to BSG as one of the better shows on TV. BSG is almost neck and neck for TV sci fi in my book. B5 also broke the mold in many ways and abandoned a lot of Trek cliches (sounds like I don’t like Trek, which isn’t true: love TOS and TNG, like DS9 mostly, VOY and ENT, no thanks). But BSG has it all over B5 in acting. The principles in B5 were excellent, particularly Jurasik and Katsulas, but sometimes the guests were dreadful. I always wondered if Ron Moore didn’t get some inspiration from B5. Never heard it stated, but there are similar sensibilities, if you exclude B5’s inclusion of aliens. Both are like novels for TV with very definitive arcs, which is refreshing in series TV. I don’t think either is going to fade away anytime soon. And if they do–so what? I’ll still enjoy my old BSG and B5 reruns on DVD (or holocube or whatever umpteenth format change is foisted on us) until my 90s.

44. thebiggfrogg - June 21, 2008

40. I don’t agree with the assessment that BSG’s ultimate message is that “anything you do in war is okay.” I would never watch such a show, because I think war is generally a frivolous course that is not decided upon with the due gravity it merits. What it is saying is that in war there are tough choices and morality ultimately comes from ourselves and our interactions with others: contrast the actions of the Battlestar Galactica and the Pegasus. Adama admitted in an episode that he would have veered in a wrong direction if his son Lee and President Roslin hadn’t been there to keep him honest. Immoral things happen on Galactica too, but it highlights the heroism and strength of our characters when they DO make the moral choice. But there are consequences for immoral AND moral actions. It isn’t an easy, perfect world like Star Trek where the moral choice is always rewarded. Sometimes you have to suffer for your morality. Also in BSG morality and the lack thereof comes from religion, a subject that Trek usually avoided.

45. thebiggfrogg - June 21, 2008

Plus give Ron Moore a break. He said he loved going to work for 10 years, so obviously he doesn’t hate Trek. He is just honest about the limitations of its format.

46. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2008

Ron Moore is not ‘anti-trek’ that is absurd. He loves Trek and is repsonsible for some of the best Trek of the 90s on both film and TV.

47. thebiggfrogg - June 21, 2008

The limitation of BSG is probably its lack of humor. Though I guess the decimation of 99.99% of humanity isn’t a hilarious subject (that is why in one of the most recent eps, seeing Laura and Gaius screaming at the hybrid to get it respond was so refreshing–it was funny in its impotence and usual for BSG; as was the first season Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down).

Okay, I’ll shut up and get back to work. . .

48. spacecadet - June 21, 2008

I like Moore and thought he was one of the better Trek writers but I think he is far too critical of Trek. It is what it is and that is why so many people spanning generations have fallen in love with it. Some of the things he complains about were the very things people found appealing.

I enjoyed BSG in its first season and the first half of season two. It was a tightly written serialized storyline with interesting characters and situations. But as the seasons have continued I find my interest waning significantly. I really can’t say BSG is the best show on tv even though a lot of people say that.

Its main villians aren’t nearly as compelling or interesting as DS9’s Founders/Dominion.

The show isn’t nearly as well-plotted as similiar epic dramas like Lost or Heroes or even DS9’s Occupation arc and Final Chapter saga. Lost for instance is a marvel of craftmanship and ambition. It is one thing to create separate independent storylines and break an ensemble down into certain threads but can you imagine the difficulty of writing a serialized drama where everything and everyone is connected and juggling all that to where you don’t give away something too early that interferes with the rest of the storylines while meeting a deadline for production.

Moore seems to have difficulty in being an efficient showrunner. I often hear how a lot has to be cut or edited out and it is apparent in the final episode. And while I like a large cast I think sometimes there are too many BSG characters and some aren’t given the attention they need.

I also don’t think Moore is as creative as or imaginative as Abrams, Lindeloff, Cuse, Kring. That isn’t meant to be harsh criticism. Every writer/producer has their strengths. I think even he would admit he is not as good with the plot side of things as the character side. And I don’t demand both characters and plots to be of equal importance although I prefer both. I like having interesting characters in compelling situations with some nice twists and surprises thrown in.

But the problem I have with BSG is if you are doing a character drama I shouldn’t hate most of the characters. I also find a lot of times that BSG is not very entertaining. It can be quite interesting in an academic sense but as far as enjoyment I rarely find that these days.

49. Beam Me Up - June 21, 2008

New BSG is one of the best things to happen to Sci Fi in a long time, but I really did like RDM on TNG. Great show

50. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 21, 2008

46, I said that because he sounds it. I could be wrong, I don’t know the man, but every time he talks about Trek he’s critical. I haven’t heard him say one thing good about Trek (other than “I enjoyed working on the show”). If I’m wrong then I apologize. I would just like for him to say something good about the show he “loves.”

Obviously BSG can’t be exactly like Trek – if it was it wouldn’t be a different show, now would it?

45, “…give Ron Moore a break.” Very well. I will read the rest of his interview and keep an open mind.

P.S. I did enjoy the “Weapons Locker 1701D” moment in BSG. It was a nice touch and greatly appreciated.

51. Tango - June 21, 2008

Feedback on the Audio–Generally, I don’t like feedback on my audio. The high pictched whine gives me a headache:)

52. The Fine Art of Eccentricity · Look at me! Look at me! AHHHHHHHH*BOOM*!!!! - June 21, 2008

[…] Moore – Fighting The Trek Clichés.  Excellent […]

53. bigfiddler - June 22, 2008

I love B5 but a lot of the dialogue was dreadful. As were some of the guest villains. Some of the “thugs” were 1-dimensional moustache twirlers. The big picture was wonderful. Some of the little details needed work.

As for BSG, I love the ambiguity. There are grey areas everywhere. Just like in real life. They take lots of chances on this show and I totally respect that even when some of them don’t quite work.

And none of this prevents me from loving Trek for what it is. I understand Moore’s criticisms and don’t feel the need to get defensive about it. He was a lot closer to it than any of us so if anybody has a leg to stand on, he does. We’re just along for the ride.

54. Thomas Jensen - June 22, 2008

I’m really enjoying reading what Mr. Moore’s sensibilities are with regards to Trek and Galactica. He’s really got his act together as far as presenting these fictional shows in a realistic and fresh way.

I think his stories are entertaining and thought provoking. I’ve always enjoyed his approach to writing and producing these shows. (With the exception of Trek 7, where Kirk died). Of course, he didn’t write that script alone.

I think giving the nod to little Navel protocols and little traditions on the Next Generation gave the crew a nobility in serving on the ship, as with the original series, when they paid attention to nautical traditions.

Looking forward to part three. Very good interview.

55. thebiggfrogg - June 22, 2008

Love B5 too, but I would say season 1 of B5 is the equivalent (although in my opinion slightly better than) TOS season 3. I wouldn’t go so far as “one-dimensional mustache twirlers”, but there was some one-dimensionality in some of the guest spots. A lot of gray among the main characters. Hell Delenn and Londo, very sympathetic characters, could be accused of instigating mass murder. Most of them were imperfect and had foibles and none were completely noble (though they don’t go as far to the depths as BSG on occasion).
Well, different strokes, I love BSG, probably best, but also am a great fan of B5, TOS, and TNG. All great in their own way, but for most intelligent exploration of humanity, warts and all, I’d have to give the prize to BSG and this exploration of warts and all humanity also makes it the strongest drama, in my opinion.

56. thebiggfrogg - June 22, 2008

Alot of “navel protocol” observed in the comment areas of this site. ;)

57. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

One part of the interview I did enjoy was how Ronald Moore says he tried to put Naval traditions in there as often as possible. I like that idea and Starfleet has always been a kind of space navy of the future so that’s a very nice touch to add whenever possible. It also adds a connection to the US military and all those men and women who are making sacrifices every day to ensure our freedom. Always a good thing to do.

58. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

See, there were some things from the interview that I liked. I guess I just didn’t like the “anti-Trek” comment and some of his criticisms. That said I would certainly say the interview was interesting.

59. Doug L - June 22, 2008

Ron’s take on Voyager would have been very interesting, and he’s absolutely right, Voyager and Enterprise added nothing different or new to the franchise.

re BSG – I’m a huge fan of both series, but have to agree that something has been lost with the characters, it’s hard to care about them anymore, as they’re all such hardened bastards and every thing is always so grim. I think Ron Moore’s BSG need could stand to remember that things can funny sometimes even in the most dire of moments. One of my favorite recent moments was Baltar trying to explain God to a robot cylon. That was amusing, but also shows how driven he is to have anyone hear is message.

I just started watching Lost. Season one offers so much more character and depth of character in its half than BSG has. I care about the characters more. Their dire predicament hasn’t become tiresome.

Great interview. Still love BSG and DS9.

Doug L.

60. Bernd Schneider - June 22, 2008

I like Ron D. Moore’s episodes for Trek for the most part, but I have to disagree with him on several accounts.

Well, ironically the shitty episode “Waltz” that shows nothing but Dukat’s pointless hallucinations is a prime example how clichés are overdone. And hallucinations are a cliché especially of DS9. But that’s fortunately a one-time exception in Moore’s work.

Contrary to Moore’s impression, there were indeed a couple of stories in early TNG where the Enterprise lost. Even to the outgunned Talarians, not to mention to the Borg. There were more controversial issues than he would probably want to concede. Just like Worf who refused to donate blood to the injured Romulan.

Sure, DS9 got rid of Trek clichés rather than Voyager did. But the two shows were running in parallel most of the time. They had to be different, and while DS9 showed a different face of Star Trek, Voyager continued the tradition of TNG. I don’t think there’s anything wrong about having two different premises that you may or may not pick your favorite from.

Finally, I don’t think at all that it is necessary for Trek to become edgier. And nowadays, with so many dark and dystopian science fiction besides Star Trek, there should be even less reason to jump on the bandwagon. Trek should remain Trek, should keep its neat and clean engine room and should not be re-imagined.

61. Charm City Trek - June 22, 2008

Love BSG & Trek for their different outlooks on life. Just as I like Star Wars. Who ever said that you need to choose one franchise only and stick with it???

I must agree that I would have loved to have seen a darking R. Moore inspired voyager…but alas that would never be. Here’s to hoping that JJ’s trek will explore new unexplored dramatic avenues.

#13 WTF??? “galactica is a bit too retro , but i mean its o.k. i guess its only science fiction , its not like its real like star trek”

Last time I check Trek is science fiction too. Not science fact.

62. thebiggfrogg - June 22, 2008

60. I agree, as much as I love BSG, Trek should be Trek (utopia not dystopia). A BSG-style reboot of Trek would be disastrous, even if BSG is my favorite TV show ever.

61. Exactly, I like TOS, TNG, BSG, B5, Farscape, Star Wars (sans the first two prequels and Return of the Jedi with reservations), Firefly, and to a lesser degree DS9 all for different reasons. Long may they all live in DVD heaven.

63. thebiggfrogg - June 22, 2008

Who cares about caring about the characters? In my opinion it is more interesting if characters are multi-faceted, like in real life. Sometimes I am a swell guy, sometimes I am a son-of-a-b****! In life do you like everyone you meet? Do you sometimes dislike someone only to find you like them later, or vice versa. I find the American penchant for likable characters and happy endings a serious artistic straight jacket (and on that point I’m with Ron Moore).

64. Stan Wingson - June 22, 2008

Not to nitpick- but I’m pretty sure Ron meant ‘convoy’ not ‘convey.’

65. dep1701 - June 22, 2008

Ron Moore is NOT “anti-Trek”. When he says anti-Trek” ihe doesn’t mean “anti” as in Trek was bad… he means “anti” as in ‘the opposite of’ or ‘different from’. That’s why I like BSG… it’s DIFFERENT FROM Star Trek.

We’ve had too many shows already that have been clones of Star Trek – including Voyager and Enterprise, which frankly became a chore for me to keep up with. Voyager I was particularly getting bored with , especially over the ‘reset button’ factor. It worked great on TNG in ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’… and that’s where it should have stayed . If there are no lasting consequences for actions…if no one learns from or remembers the experience, then what’s the point of the story ?

Enterprise was disappointing until it’s fourth year, when the Reeves-Stevens came aboard and tried ( too late, unfortunately ) to guide it in the direction it should have gone with from the beginning. I knew that series was in trouble from the first episode, when the first thing we saw was a Klingon. I was yelling at the television, ” Star Trek doesn’t ALWAYS have to be about the f*****g Klingons!” Someone, somewhere was thinking, “well, we have to put a klingon in the first show so everyone will know it’s Star Trek, oh, yeah, and put one of them there borgs in soon so we’ll get the ‘next generation’ crowd interested too. What? Not until the 24th century? Who cares! It’ll thrill the kiddies! Screw continuity!”

As Moore said, it became cliche. But, if you listen to his commentaries and read his interviews over the years, he loved Trek, especially the original series-as I do, and was always looking to work some of that original series feel into the other shows to counteract some of the blandness that permeated the later series ( thanks to the Roddenberry utopian theory ). There were some genuinely good stories on Voyager, when there was actual conflict ( as one previous poster mentioned, the episode where Tuvok went against orders to steal an important piece of alien technology, and the ensuing fallout between he and Janeway was great… but completely gone by the next episode! ).

Don’t get me wrong – I Love Trek, but I like other shows because they ARE NOT copying Trek, as well. And I don’t believe that Ron Moore condescends about trek at all. he speaks from the experience of wirting for it, and I for one am glad he’s conciously NOT repeating the Trek experience on Galactica.

66. Doug L - June 22, 2008

hey 63…

Maybe you’re referring back to my post (59) maybe not… but I think you overstated this position. I don’t think anyone said the characters all needed to be likable, or that we needed to be spoon fed sacchrine (sp?)…, and to your point, multifaceted characters have more than a single dimension and I’m saying we’re mostly seeing only one dimension.

My point was simply that the stories don’t avail themselves to a more rounded presentation of who the characters are. Because of the abysmally dark subject matter, it would be helpful to identify more with the main characters by showing a lighter or a warmer side to their personalities once in awhile and remind you why you care about them at all.

Doug L.

67. Ryan T. Riddle - June 22, 2008

I agree with Moore in that VOY should’ve been more of a struggle to get home, that it didn’t have to be as sanitary as it was (what I like to call TNG-Lite). I watched little of VOY, but when I saw “Year of Hell,” I remember thinking that this is should’ve been an entire season without the reset button at the end. It didn’t have to be as dark as nuBSG, but it certainly should’ve been harder with much more lost and a new culture born on this tiny starship.

68. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

67, I’ll agree that they could have made it tougher for Voyager to get home. I will also point out that there were plenty of times the ship nearly got destroyed, but it usually was fixed by the next episode. As for “Year of Hell,” by the end of the episode it was clear that the ship couldn’t even support it’s crew – obviously at that point the reset button needed to be pushed. “Year of Hell” was a great episode, by the way. My point is some damage would be okay, but damage to the point that the ship is useless, like at the end of “Year of Hell” would have made the show pointless because everyone would be dead!! Now to your (and Moore’s) idea about “a new culture” being developed on Voyager – I would point out that it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to cling to their morals and beliefs in a time of crisis – after all if you can’t stand by your morality in a time of crisis then they don’t really exist in the first place. Further, perhaps a better term would be “sub-culture” they’d still be Starfleet officers (and able to get along once they got back to Earth) but perhaps a grittier version of them. Then again, those who survived the Dominion War would have their own sub-culture too don’t you think? The fact is in real life their are many sub-cultures in America, the Police sub-culture, the military sub-culture, etc., yet they’re all still American and hold the same basic beliefs. Replacing the Starfleet/Federation culture entirely would be a mistake as those beliefs and morals are fundamental and, by the way, the exact morals that Star Trek has always been about. Therefore “replacing” those beliefs and morals would make the show terrible, but the development of a sub-culture would have been okay, and in some ways understandable.

By the way, VOY is my third favorite Trek series and I thought that it had plenty of action and suspense in many episodes as it was. It was a great show and I truly enjoyed it as it is.

69. spacecadet - June 22, 2008

Moore says he is trying to break away from cliches but BSG has become predictable in that whenever there is a story direction you can always guarantee it will be the dark and grim one. It guts the impact or suspense. And I’ve noticed the show seems to have gone overboard in emphasizing the dramatic especially with all the camera close-ups on the characters as they adopt their intense Dramatic Facial Expressions and shouting.

And I might point out there have been several threads that never went anywhere and were dropped from seasons two and three especially.

Plus it has its share of flat characters like Zarek, Apollo, Lampkin. The political stuff isn’t that compelling and has bored me in season four.

70. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

60, an excellent post and I agree that Trek doesn’t need to get darker to be good. If you watch the documentary “How William Shatner Changed the World” Shatner states that he believes that what hurt Trek ratings after TNG is that it turned away from the bright future and went darker. Everyone has their own opinion on the subject but I would state that I believe that neither Shatner nor Moore are right. I believe that they are both too extreme in one way of the other (Shatner wants it too bright and Moore wants it too dark.) I thing the middle road would be the best option, a perfect balance of the two, would make Trek perfect. I think overall Trek achieved that and will hopefully continue to do so. To quote from Star Trek VI “We’re both extremists. Reality is probably somewhere in between.” Kirk was talking to Spock about Kirk acting emotionally and Spock over-relying on logic. I think that quote would also work with Shatner talking to Moore as I stated above.

60, I especially liked your last point at the end of your post.

71. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

60, I’ve also been reading your reviews on DS9 and think overall you hit the good and bad points pretty well. I don’t always agree with you but your points are clear and well-thought out. I enjoy reading them. EAS is also a great site and I continue to go there often. Great work.

72. Bernd Schneider - June 22, 2008

#71 Thanks, that’s much appreciated. :-)

Watching DS9 again, I notice many interesting new facets, but I also discover weaknesses that I may have been willing to forgive the series ten years ago.

Regarding the Trek vs. BSG debate, Moore has every right to compare the two franchises. But fans shouldn’t overrate that, and shouldn’t take it for granted that the recipes that resurrected BSG would help Trek likewise. I have seen almost every BSG episode so far (although I’m a few months behind). But I personally watch BSG with the knowledge that it’s a different kettle of fish, neither the “better and more modern Trek” nor any kind of role model for a sci-fi series.

And one more thing: I never thought that people like Moore and Braga were at odds just because of different opinions on the franchise. There has to be more about it than just “Moore wants it edgier and Braga wants it traditional” if the two don’t get along. Usually it is a personal thing, rather than a professional clash.

73. Anthony Thompson - June 22, 2008

Interesting interview, BUT…Moore was one of the Next Gen folks who made the writing lazy. The technobabble was lazy. The technobabble solutions to crisis situations always reminded me of the original Batman series, where some new gadget we had never seen before happened to be on Batman’s belt and got him and Robin out of trouble. That was funny. But on Next Gen, it was laughable.

The cliche board. Well, Moore & co. milked those cliches time and time again. With few exceptions, Next Gen writing simply didn’t approach the quality of the first two seasons of TOS writing.

74. M. - June 22, 2008

#11 & #13
I like the fact that BSG has a look all its own. I don’t think I would have accepted the series if it had looked like Trek. I feel as though the Trek visual style got stale after a while. It seemed after Voyager, everything just looked either the same or like a knock off of a set we’d seen on one the previous Trek series.
Not everything should be clean and contrived like Trek sometimes was, nor should it be. And as for your “rusty pipes” comment, have you ever seen the Original Star Wars?! Exactly. That had a unique un-Trek look to it too, and it was gorgeous design and visually believable.

There are other visual styles besides Trek. Your comments are like going into a contemporary art museum with someone who only accepts Classical art. Yes Classical art is beautiful, but it is by no means the only art out there. Broaden your horizons.

75. Mike - June 22, 2008

God, Moore is so sharp on this stuff! Right down the importance of the navel traditions. In retrospect, I’d rather have bsg than Voyager in any form, so it’s a good thing he got tired of the franchise at that point. Besides, it was probably good for trek to bottom out (not that I don’t enjoy some aspects of post DS9 trek), because now we have a reinvention of the concept. As much as I have great affection for trek, it seemed to focus too much story energy on conveying the universe, as if that was the purpose of the show. Of course, recent articles have revealed that that was indeed the intent. There’s a certain merit to that, but I think they just went too far in how they sanitized the drama in the name of that philosophy.

76. S. John Ross - June 22, 2008

What #73 said.

That said, I really did admire and enjoy the first two seasons of BSG, when it was still smart, insightful, and populated with engaging characters. S1 and S2 had an impressive mix of brains, heart, believability and space-opera sensibility, so my hat remains forever off to those years, and I choose to believe that going south at midpoint is a homage to the original show taken a step too far :)

77. RuFFeD_UP - June 22, 2008

I admit to enjoy Voyager I had to suspend disbelief a crapload I think if he’d been allowed the creative freedom he’d wished for on VOY he would’ve moved on to Enterprise and it wouldn’t have been cancelled, it got so freakin awesome in seasons 3 and 4 but I also enjoyed 1 & 2 as well.

78. Occuprice - June 22, 2008

I think it’s great how polarized people get by Moore’s comments. Those who disagree (for the most part) seem to do so with complete venom and bias (they love Star Trek too much to hear slams). After reading most of these responses, it seems like many people who don’t agree with Moore (which are the clear minority here) seem to take the “he is completely wrong and BSG sucks”. I think that kind of response is quite shallow and only reveals how incompetent the person is at responding to the issue (whether what Moore says has value). They see a threat in what Moore says, and they react by declaring him an “enemy”, disagreeing with whatever he says. No series is infallible. Star Trek has problems. No shit. So don’t just sit at your computers and say that nothing Moore says has any value.

There are also a few other points I’d like to address:

1. Someone said that didn’t believe that a retro-BSG could work. Now, sadly, I get to pull out my own nerdiness and say this: the BSG world was presumably more futuristic and polished before the Cylon war. They had to go retro to keep the Cylons from frakkin them over. It’s not like they just evolved (technology-wise) normally to that point. Even looking at the Pegasus we see a ship that seems properly futuristic. The BSG is a ship that needed to be retro when built and is 40 years old by the time of the show. God, I can’t even read that without thinking Uber-nerd. But, so be it.

2. Someone said Moore was a big part of the cliches and problems with TNG. Moore didn’t even come into the show until the third season (by which point TNG had already established its way of doing stories) and it took even longer before he got more say than the lowest staff writer. Meanwhile, he gave us individual episodes that greatly expanded the complexity of the Star Trek Universe. The Klingons stand as a testament to his work, and I view them as the most interesting Trek civilization.

3. My own reaction to Moore’s comments: I would have loved his vision for Voyager if he started it in the beginning. But by the time he joined, Voyager was just too established. If, suddenly, the ship started keeping damage and all of that stuff I think it would have just been jarring and it would have lost the audience that, clearly, had become comfortable with Voyager as it was. I think that by the time Moore arrived at Voyager, its fate was sealed.

So, that’s just my 2 cents and then some. I do regard BSG as the best show of television. But it has its flaws. If someone who intimately knew the show (such as David Eick, one of the actors, one of the writers) commented on its flaws, I would accept at least some of what they say. Hell, Moore comments more on the flaws of his show than on the praises in his podcasts. Things i don’t see as problems he does.

Ron Moore has 10 years experience at Trek. He has written dozens of episodes. He was an executive producer. He is far more qualified than any of us to comment on Star Trek, and you should take some of what he says to heart (even if not everything) rather than just say “he’s wrong and that’s that.”

So I guess that’s my four cents and then some. G’night.

79. Occuprice - June 22, 2008

Gah! The Sixth Cent (har har har. Lame). I forgot something else I wanted to address.

Someone said that Star Trek is superior to BSG because it has lasted 42 years.

Hardly a reason to say something is superior. A show can thrive for a long time by appealing to the masses with average level things that don’t challenge or polarize the people while sometimes offering a great episode. I would say that that’s what star trek (save DS9) did. Star Trek also has a positive name identification. BSG has to overcome its name, which many people associate with the campy 70’s show. BSG is also far more polarizing and less accessable, so it’ll have less widespread appeal.

However, the main problem that I have with that comment is that, sure ST has been around 42 years, but it’s also BEEN 42 years. BSG was brought back in 2003. It has been 5 years. You can’t compare a 5 year old show with a 42 year old franchise. Indeed, the second BSG-franchise series premieres this fall: Caprica.

It could also be said that the reason that there are so many spinoffs of Treks and Star Gates and not BSG (this prequel series is something completely different from the show) is that BSG has its story to tell and when its done, its done. It’s not like it can be continued with a new cast.

It’s also interesting to note that I think TOS and, recently, ENT were canceled. TNG, DS9, VOY had no fear of that because they were Star Trek. But the pilot series TOS was canceled. The recent ENT was canceled.

BSG isn’t canceled. It’s coming to a conclusion as determined by the show runners. They were not told they had to end. So, strictly comparing on that level, BSG is a more successful show.

Anyway, I’m really rambling here, but my point is that you can’t compare a 42 year old franchise with a 5 year old show. You also can’t use length of a series to determine quality. You also can’t use number of spinoffs to determine quality.

I also think that BSG is getting better mainstream reviews than any Star Trek show. Sure you can say “bah, I like other things”, but the fact remains that BSG is more than a “sidenote” to quote another poster.

80. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

78 & 79, I could respond but you clearly misunderstood some of my previous posts. I personally don’t like BSG. There is nothing wrong if you do. Further I went back and re-read both parts of his interviews and found he had some good points (i.e. adding naval traditions whenever possible) and I stated that he wrote many good episodes. However, stating that people who disagree with him are “incompetent” and “shallow” shows your lack of respect for other people’s opinions. I could throw in an insult here like you did, but I will not do that.

As to my “sidenote” comment – let’s face it – in the grand scheme of life, most if not all of entertainment is a side note. I will say however that the statement was partially inspired by my dislike for the show but it also was to point out how Star Trek has inspired scientists, engineers, mathematicians, inventors, etc. for generations and the strong connection between NASA and Star Trek (something no other show has.) You may be correct that when it comes to SciFi it’s more than a sidenote, time will tell.

Now, my statement about it being “superior” is a statement about my belief about Star Trek’s overall quality. (I would call it “superior” to B5, Stargate, etc. and I enjoy and love both those shows. It’s a personal opinion, not a disparagement.) My further statement that it’s lasted 42 years was a statement about how it’s been popular over time and has survived the test of time. Meaning it can’t be terrible as, at some points in the interview, it seemed Moore was implying. In many parts of the interview he did not imply that but there were points in which he seemed to be saying that Star Trek was terrible. I know that’s not what he was saying and I have already retracted my “anti-Trek” comment.

That’s another thing, perhaps you should read ALL the posts prior to jumping to conclusions. I did that once and freely admit my mistake. However, you made several mistakes yourself in your above posts didn’t you?

81. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

79 said, “I also think that BSG is getting better mainstream reviews than any Star Trek show.” So did things like “Friends” but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. We all have our personal tastes. I did not insult you and would respectfully ask you have the same courtesy.

82. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 22, 2008

The comment “I did not insult you and would respectfully ask you have the same courtesy” was in reference to his insults in posts 78 & 79, not the “mainstream reviews” comment. Just to be clear.

83. thebiggfrogg - June 23, 2008

Who knew Ron Moore was so polarizing, he is like George Bush with Jesus hair.

84. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 23, 2008

IIsn’t it interesting that in all of our discussions, and Moore’s interview up to this point, we haven’t discussed the true issue which is what is Star Trek’s heart and soul? What is it’s central core? The answer is actually quite simple. It’s central core is a better tomorrow (aka a better future), good, strong morality that’s even more critical to stand by in times of crisis, and the peaceful exploration of the wonder that is space. It is also true that nobody is perfect and that imperfection can be shown but ultimately, in the end, the characters of Star Trek will stand by their morality. Even in DS9, a show Moore helped to run, even when someone stumbled (i.e. Sisko in DS9) they eventually came back to who they were: decent, moral people doing the best they can. At the end of “In the Pale Moonlight,” a great episode by the way, Sisko felt guilty because he was an “accessory to murder…I’ve bribed men to cover the crimes of other men,” and he then went on to convince himself that he could “live with it.” But in the end, he was still a Starfleet officer and always would be, which is what he told Worf in “The Way of the Warrior.”

“Oh I could take off the uniform and run all the way to the Nyberrite Alliance. But it wouldn’t matter. A Starfleet officer. That’s what I am, and that’s what I’ll always be.”
-Benjamin Sisko to Work
DS9: “Way of the Warrior”

The same had to be true of Janeway and her crew. This is something that was excellently done in “Equinox.” Janeway nearly killed a man who wouldn’t tell her what she wanted in her quest to hunt down Capt. Ramsom because he violated everything the Starfleet uniform stood for. Ironically, at that moment, she was doing the same thing. But near the end of the episode, when Capt. Ransom decided to give up and turn his crew over to Janeway, because of his conscience, Janeway said, “He’s still a Starfleet captain. He may have forgotten that for a while, but I believe him.” And that’s exactly what Trek’s about. They may stumble, and sometimes even make serious mistakes and throw away their ethics, but only for a while. In the end they’re still Starfleet officers and will follow their ethical standards. That’s the central core of Star Trek. As a result, having the Voyager crew “no longer be Starfleet officers” by the time they got back to Earth just wouldn’t work. Their own sub-culture, like a police sub-culture, or a military sub-culture, yes, but a different enough culture where they’re no longer Starfleet officers wouldn’t work.

By the way I know that you could point out Starfleet officer’s like Adm. Pressman but he was meant to be the villain of that story and Riker wrestled with his conscience until he made the right decision and told the truth. Picard was quite correct when he said, “…so long as you can still do that you belong in that uniform.”

As a final note, I personally don’t believe that the central core of Star Trek, as I’ve termed it, is too limiting. You can do a lot with it as was clearly shown. I think that you can have many great stories, great characters, great conflicts, great dilemma, etc. and stay within that central core.

85. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 23, 2008

83, I never thought of it that way, but it’s an interesting analysis.

I would agree that I may have overreacted to the “anti-Trek” comment Moore made (I know it had to do with style of tech solution storytelling) and I’ve recanted those statements.

I would be very interesting in people’s opinions and observations on my above analysis (post #84) and would welcome any comments you might have (NO INSULTS – only constructive comments and criticisms please.)

86. Wrath - June 23, 2008

You can, but you can’t show humans making selfish mistakes, or having character weaknesses. That’s what RDM is referring to.

87. JJwerecountingonyoubuddy - June 23, 2008

I just LOVE listening to this type of interview. Ron Moore is a genius imho and please keep up the awesome work and these interviews !

Any insight he can give is very interesting to me and it is nice to hear somebody tell it the way it was, flat out.

Thanks a million for doing this !

88. Closettrekker - June 23, 2008

#79—-“It’s also interesting to note that I think TOS and, recently, ENT were canceled. TNG, DS9, VOY had no fear of that because they were Star Trek. But the pilot series TOS was canceled. The recent ENT was canceled.

BSG isn’t canceled. It’s coming to a conclusion as determined by the show runners. ”

TOS was a show on a major network (and in all fairness, if the executives had known what they had, it’s unlikely it would ever have BEEN cancelled after such a short run. As for ENT, it’s my opinion that it was a mistake to run it on UPN. That was, at the time at least, far too limited access (I never even had the chance to see it on a regular basis until it was canceled).

As far as I know, BSG is on the sci-fi channel. Is it not?

I can’t get into BSG, but it obviously has a strong following. However, “superiority” is far too general a term to support any debate on even ground. How do you define “superior” when using the term to rate a sci-fi tv show? Seems like “pick your flavor” to me.

All I know is Paramount just gave JJ Abrams $150 million to make a Star Trek movie, and BSG is on the sci-fi channel. It might be better than one incarnation of Trek or another, I don’t know. I wonder how long it would have lasted on NBC.

89. Scifigirl - June 23, 2008

Great interview but it really needs some revising and editing… That being said, while I like the fact that Ron Moore gave us some of the darker and/or controversial TNG episodes, I’m glad he eventually left Voyager and didn’t succeed in turning it into something akin to the new BSG. That show is obviously the antithesis of Star Trek in many aspects and that’s probably why I could never get into it. I love the control panels on the bridge with all their blinking lights and smooth surfaces. :-D

90. Scifigirl - June 23, 2008

# 60 – Extremely well said.

91. haissemguy - June 23, 2008

Makes me think how good a show Voyager could have been if the powers that be had been a bit more daring and willing to push boundries.

As it stands Voyager suffered horribly from reset syndrome and it was a times a horrible, horrible show.

Shame Mr Moore couldn’t stamp his creative talents on Voyager which would of made it a decent show instead.

I have just realised why i didn’t like it. I didn’t care. About the characters, about the ship about neelix latest broth. DS9 had characters in buckets full and i cared about what happened to them. The Defiant blowing up really sucked. In Voyager i didn’t give to craps what happened to Plainway or anyone else and if the ship got messed up in one episode, bam it’s brand spanking new in the next.

This is where Battlestar excels and makes it in my opinion the best sci-fi show since well Deep Space Nine.

92. Closettrekker - June 23, 2008

#63—“Who cares about caring about the characters? In my opinion it is more interesting if characters are multi-faceted, like in real life. Sometimes I am a swell guy, sometimes I am a son-of-a-b****! In life do you like everyone you meet? Do you sometimes dislike someone only to find you like them later, or vice versa. I find the American penchant for likable characters and happy endings a serious artistic straight jacket (and on that point I’m with Ron Moore).”

I disagree with the premise that “likable characters” cannot be complex or even enigmatic. Americans loved Tony Soprano, yet he is a brutal thug and a murderer who makes his living through usery and the threat of violence. A character doesn’t even have to be “a good person” for an American audience to like him. There just needs to be some qualities about and within the character that audiences can identify with. Modern television characters are often easier to identify with if they are depicted as flawed individuals, while the golden boy hero is simply just not as attractive as he once was (audiences have become too cynical for that, IMO).

I don’t like everything Ron Moore did with Trek, but I like what he was trying to accomplish. Perhaps BSG (I don’t watch it) is a better venue for Moore to fully express himself through those characters. Good for him.

Me—I’m a Trek fan.

93. VinzKlortho - June 23, 2008

I must admit I’m starting to memorize Voyager, thanks to Spike TV. I haven’t seen this many re-runs since the original re-runs of the Original Series. But in doing so, there is definitely a pattern that emerges – a holodeck show, a Hirogen show, a Seven reverts show, yada, yada. Voyager, given their plight, would’ve been the perfect format for a BSG-type saga, rather than , “Oh, no, it’s another friggin’ nebula.”

Another point about BSG: maybe the Capricans spent all their time and energy developing FTL technology instead of consumer electronics. I’d trade my wii for a jump drive.

94. Jeff - June 23, 2008

You know, I’ve seen countless interviews with Ron Moore where it’s basically him talking about his experiences on Star Trek and comapring it to Galactica and I have to ask this: How many more interviews can he do where he essentially harps on about how he was held back working on teh Star Trek shows and how much better they would have been if he could have done what he wanted to do, and how Galactica is so great ’cause he’s calling the shots. I know he isn’t directly saying those things but what more can you infer from his comments?

Here’s the thing, Mr. Moore. You have a hit show, that’s great, bud – Now go do it again. And again. And again. When you develop a real track record of success, then I’ll give more serious consideration to what you’re saying, Until then, you should give it a rest. Try to resist the urge to brag and compare, and tell these simple minded reporters who want to keep on this same topic to give it a rest and talk about something else.

BTW, in my opinion, if he did darken up Star Trek as much as he has with Galactica, it wouldn’t worked. Trek and Galactica are two different animals. One’s meant to be optimistic, the other was designed to have a more gloomy skin.

95. Rick - June 23, 2008

He did work on DS9 from the ground up and I have to say that there were three things that ran foul with me in regards to that show:

a) The characters are too forgiving when one of them did something horrible. This is something reflected in BSG too (though referred to by the characters because they were a gang on the run rather than a civilization). Quark, the enigmatic Ferengi bartender, got the station nearly destroyed on several occasions, even allowing someone to hijack it for his personal gain. He got like a week’s jail time. I mean WTF. I understand the reason for the character but he would’ve been imprisoned or booted off the station if it were real life.

b) Klingon episodes – Moore’s favourite, since his contributions to Voyager included a lot of Klingon material. As soon as Worf was on the show, we got Klingon episodes. I don’t go for it. It’s crap religious nonsense. Same with all the bajoran stuff. They’re depicted as retarded animists.

c) Holodeck episodes. Thank the gods there are no holodecks in BSG. I know it’s an excuse to allow them to use prebuilt western/etc sets and put cheap costumes(from storage) on the characters, but these things always seemed stupid to me. They never said anything about the characters and were harmless filler. I hope Ron Moore wasn’t the one who came up with a lot of those.

96. Casper - June 23, 2008

I frequently questioned the capabiltity and incorporation of an entity like the UFP, when other civilizations may not deal with things in a like manner. For instance, capitalist cultures such as the Ferengi may not wish to give up their ways just to co-exist with or interact in Federation space. Idealism is admirable, but even the Marxist states needed a method to market with other political systems.

It seems to me that everyone could, in theory, have been satisfied with a Moore-penned Voyager.

Yes, the darker tone would present itself. I find it hard to argue that without a supply chain, the crew would have to deal with other creatures and cultures on their terms, possibly to receive cents on the dollar for whatever they would be willing to barter.

Perhaps some items could be generated, but food and water might not be as easily attainable with every battle, encroachment by hostile forces, by a simple breakdown of internal systems.

After many years and isolated contact with the Federation, Moore’s vision is a very likely outcome.

Now extrapolate the concept further, those who prefer the bright future of Trek:
A hardened, desperate crew finally returns to Earth space. Changed by so many experiences impossible for their contemporaries to understand or sympathize with, they struggle to fit back in with the Federation.

Perhaps some unpopular or difficult decisions were made in the far distance of the galaxy. Personal and psychological sacrifice.

Yet, the dark Voyager tale serves to illuminate the hope and promise of the utopian world of the UFP. That Voyager’s captain made tough choices, often giving up one to save many, marshalling all the faith and hope possible to arrive home, only underscores the purpose of Roddenberry’s ideal.

I think Moore’s premise not only allowed something for everyone, it would have legs beyond the ship arriving home.

Call me crazy, but I think the infighting about it occludes the promise of what might have been.

97. Closettrekker - June 23, 2008

“Nick Meyer introduced a lot of Naval feeling into Trek with Star Trek II, which seemed to go away again in the Next Gen era.”

Yes. Roddenberry (a military man himself) introduced Naval traditions into Star Trek (rank structure, disciplinary codes and procedures, naval terms and language), and then seemed to revise his vision with TNG (changing “landing party” to “away team”, for example). Nick Meyer’s take was the most military-driven, but the TOS writers/producers of the 1960’s started it all.

“I always thought of the Naval lineage as an important component of Star Trek.” —Ron Moore

Absolutely. Me too. It made so much sense for life and operations aboard the Enterprise to reflect naval tradition.

In fact, I’m guilty of nitpicking where I think it should happen and it doesn’t. I can remember one of the TNG characters (I think it was Geordi) misusing the term “aye” (substituting it for the word “yes” in answer to a question), and thinking, “There is no way he would have said that”.

I would also have appreciated more of what Moore was talking about here—“Like in “Data’s Day” just the fact that the day begins with Riker coming on and relieving Data’s watch and Data has to report to him the state of the ship and then the formality of “I relieve you sir” “I stand relieved” and Data walking off and the sense of a new watch coming on board.”

It is difficult to imagine a ship with that many personnel and responsibilities standing on so little organizational and structural formalty. Moore’s way would have been more believable, IMO.

98. Admiral Stedman - June 23, 2008

What I want to know is who is responsible for Moore’s head shots? They are amazing! If I could get my hair and beard combo to look like that…wow.

99. Chris - June 23, 2008

At its central core, Star Trek is a corporate property designed to make corporate shareholders money. As long as it does that, it will be around.

Love TOS, TNG, and BSG. Like DS9, VOY, and ENT. Ron Moore is a gifted writer who’s written some of my favorite hours of television. His perspective is interesting and I agree with some of it and disagree with some. To debate whether or not he is correct is an exercise in futility. He’s entitled to his opinions, as are you (even the guy who thinks Trek is real).

Looking forward to the new movie, but we shouldn’t forget what Trek really is. A corporate product designed to appeal to the widest demographic possible.

100. The Underpants Monster - June 23, 2008

For my taste, he depends too much on the shocking revelation as a writing crutch. Every week (in both DS9 and BSG) there’s some galaxy-shattering secret that comes to light, and the whole paradigm shifts disorientingly back and forth like a shakycam. Eventually, it just gets to be boring, and it makes it hard to invest emotionally.

I haven’t watched the last season of BSG yet (Tivo’d because of evening commitments), and I don’t really feel uber-motivated to do so. He’s painted himself into a corner where no matter what the next shocking revelation is, it’s bound to be a letdown. You can only top yourself in that game for so long before it gets ridiculous.

What makes BSG worth watching to me (no matter how strained the plot gets) is the performances from Olmos, Sackhoff, Callis, and Helfer; and the visual design. Take away those two elements, and I doubt it would even be a hit.

101. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 23, 2008

99, when I referred to its “central core” I was referring to the type of story that Trek has tried to tell and the moral messages it has tried to put forward. A critical reason why a BSG style story wouldn’t work for Trek and a Trek type story wouldn’t work for BSG. Every show has its own style of stroytelling. Stargate has its way, Star Wars has its way, etc. and that’s hardly limited to SciFi. NCIS, Law & Order, etc. also have their way of storytelling. That’s why there are fans of one show but who aren’t fans of another show. There are Trek fans, BSG fans, B5 fans, Star Wars fans, Stargate fans, etc. who may or may not like the other SciFi shows or who may like some of them but not all. It’s all about a matter of taste. For instance I like Trek (first and foremost) and B5 and Stargate, but not BSG. It’s a matter of preference. And it all boils down to styles of storytelling.

With all that said, you are correct that it is a “corporate property” and that so long as it is profitable it’ll be around. The moment it’s not profitable it’ll be gone. That’s a fact of the entertainment business and the big decisions will always be out of the hands of the fans. Now that doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss the Pros and Cons of a show and compare and contrast with other shows and debate about what’s best for Trek. We’re all entitled to our opinion and the forums here provide an opportunity to do so.

102. M. - June 23, 2008


My sympathies are out to you and your fight with those on this thread that are either misquoting you, or misunderstanding you. I find that you can’t win them all, especially around here. But keep fighting the good fight.

Another thing though, for a group of people devoted to a series about hope and the attainment of a better future, Trek fans can seem rather cynical at times. I guess it is one of those ultimate ironies.

103. Doug L - June 23, 2008

Yo re 100 Mr. Underpants…

I totally agree with you on that point. I’m still watching and I do think it’s a great show, but I’m a little underwhelmed with the reveals, it doesn’t seem like this was the plan and they spend too much time focussing on weaker supporting cast members over the main characters.

Your point enhances my points about character from posts 59 & 66. I don’t care that much about the characters, and the story has gotten to the point of …. what else can go wrong and… so what?

If I can’t feel the impact of these huge moments through a character’s emotional investment, then you I’m losing interest. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing with storytelling… Right now… all the characters are soooo tortured that you just can’t really feel it anymore.

Doug L.

104. Doug L - June 23, 2008

re all of my posts….

My writing is really sloppy these days… apologies to all. Doug L.

105. The Trekkie - June 24, 2008

Anti Trek is a cliche, too.

What you need for a good show are bright moments & dark moments.
A mixture of darkness and light (only that comes close to reality).

Babylon 5 makes that perfectly, quite dark, but with a lot of humor.

106. me - June 24, 2008


But BSG has one problem: no humor.
I never laughed. It is a bit too dark, sometimes.
And that is not realistic. i worked in a nursing home, especially these people who are confrontated with death every day develop some special kind of dark humor, that is missing in that show.

107. Corrvin - June 24, 2008

I agree with #8 completely. I am tired of all the darkness in this world. Trek was always some kind of escape. Taking the positive aspect of Star Trek away is killing Star Trek and you end up with just another new scifi series.

108. LoyalStarTrekFan - June 24, 2008

105, I completely agree with you. Well said. (See my comments in posts 70 and 84.)

106, an excellent point. A little humor would help BSG a lot. Maybe that’s why I got tired of it. I don’t know but it’s certainly possible.

107, another good point and I think that Shatner would agree with you. In the documentary “How William Shatner Changed the World” he blames the ratings problems of VOY and ENT (and to a smaller degree DS9 because less people watched DS9 than TNG) on the fact that Trek had gone dark and abandoned Roddenberry’s vision.

109. trekboi - June 26, 2008

i always felt star trek’s decline came from changing it to be like all the other dark sci-fi shows- abandoning Gene Roddenbery’s optomistic vision.
I always thought rather than trying to change star trek they should go do another show….

With Battlestar they did- but oddly enuff battlestar has never ratred as high as next gen….?

110. Voyager- was htte man besser machen knnen? - Seite 3 - SciFi-Forum - July 1, 2008

[…] had formed its own civilization which was dissimilar to that which they had left behind… Exclusive Interview: Ron Moore – Fighting The Trek Clichs | TrekMovie.com __________________ Diplomatie ist die Kunst, mit hundert Worten zu verschweigen, was man mit einem […]

111. Segunda parte da entrevista com Ron Moore « Startrekbr’s Weblog - July 4, 2008

[…] produtor Ron Moore concedeu uma longa entrevista ao site Trek Movie, que foi dividida em três partes. Na primeira já mostrada pelo TB, Moore falou sobre as séries […]

112. URL - December 8, 2011

Thanks for the post. I like your writing style – Im trying to start a blog myself, I think I might read thru all your posts for some suggestions! Thanks once more. 511196

113. Arizona Smoke Shop - January 16, 2012

This site is typically a walk-through you discover the details it suited you about this and didnt know who want to. Glimpse here, and you will undoubtedly discover it. 588550

114. san jose real estate - January 18, 2012

We guarantee authentic brands avoiding inferior commercial imitations, or even dangerous counterfeits. 525214

115. verdopple deine dates - January 18, 2012

What is your most noted accomplishment. They may want good listeners rather than good talkers. 48723

116. icdc college online programs - January 18, 2012

The book is fantastic, but this review is not exactly spot-on. Being a Superhero is much more about selecting foods that heal your body, not just eating meat/dairy-free. Processed foods like those mentioned in this review arent what Alicia is trying to promote. In the event you arent open to sea vegetables (and yes, Im talking sea weed), just stop at vegan. 289284

117. conservatory - January 20, 2012

Spot lets start function on this write-up, I truly believe this wonderful web site requirements significantly a lot more consideration. Ill apt to be once once more to read a fantastic deal a lot more, several thanks for that information. 170566

118. Gesund abnehmen - January 23, 2012

I like this site very much so much superb info . 125609

119. Great Hotel Prices - January 23, 2012

Hey there. I want to to inquire somethingis this a wordpress weblog as we are thinking about shifting more than to WP. Also did you make this theme on your personal? Thanks. 753951

120. Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung - January 23, 2012

When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service? Thanks! 218606

121. jack - January 24, 2012

Hello. Excellent job. I did not expect this. This really is a superb articles. Thanks! 866687

122. conveyancing quote - January 24, 2012

Just wanna remark on few general things, The website style is ideal, the topic matter is rattling good 563998

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