Star Trek - Moore and Piller - a great lose for Trek. by Ghoulman

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Star Trek - Moore and Piller - a great lose for Trek.

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 07:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2120
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 4, 2004 5:05 AM

Looking at the demise of Star Trek it's become pretty obvious just how the sequence of events happened and what we, the audience, got.

Ronald Moore was one of Treks great writers. He practically created DS9 all on his own as well as the Voyager premise with (female writer I can't remember right now... help!).

Michael Piller was also one of those great writers who had contributed to making the new Trek series on TV more than simply an adventure show in space.

Of course, Berman and Braga had plans to take over Trek and get rid of anyone who threatened thier power. And they did.

What happened after?

Well, B&B gave us the travesty called Enterprise. A show that is universally hated by even long time Trek viewers.

But here we have Pillar creating The Dead Zone - a terrific show with depth and feeling that is an engrossing watch.

Moore created the new Battlestar Galactica - a show so rich and detailed with character nuance and plot twisting it's easily on par with poor Firefly. A class production!

So you gotta ask yourself... why the frell did Paramount let B&B keep Trek while others who lead in Trek were left to go out and create FAR BETTER SCI-FI in other playgrounds?

If someone from Paramount reads this I'd love an answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 7:03 AM

CARDIE

While Ron Moore is indeed a wonderful writer, it was Michael Piller whose career runs parallel with the rise and fall of modern Trek. Moore did not create any of the Trek shows.

Piller came to TNG as head writer after its lackluster first two seasons and made it a huge hit. He also set about developing new talent for the franchise. By the end of TNG, he had initiated Moore, Rene Echevarria, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Joe Menosky and Brannon Braga into the Trek writing pool. He and Berman then created DS9, and he, Berman and Jeri Taylor created Voyager. He then decided he wanted to move away from Trek. (I think this was during the first season of Voyager, but I'm not sure.)

Moore, Echevarria, Wolfe and showrunner Ira Behr managed to keep up the quality on DS9. Taylor and Braga had less luck with Voyager. Braga is not a bad writer when working for a strong showrunner. I just don't think he knows how to run a writing staff.

Enterprise is the first modern Trek series to have no involvement by Michael Piller, and it shows.

Cardie

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:11 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
So you gotta ask yourself... why the frell did Paramount let B&B keep Trek while others who lead in Trek were left to go out and create FAR BETTER SCI-FI in other playgrounds?

It's almost like Paramount keeps Trek around as their staple. They take risks on other projects, perhaps, but they know that Trek has a solid fan base - or at least it did. Before Enterprise. I know several long-time fans who refuse to watch it. I'm watching in support of Connor Trinneer, who is the one true talent on the show, while at the same time praying someone offers him a better gig. If I could concoct my own, believe me, I would.

Also, there's the strong evidence that a sci-fi formatted program isn't exactly guaranteed to bring any network success. There's just too many mundanes out there who think anything sci-fi IS Star Trek and won't bother with it. The Dead Zone is good but it had to be seen as risky, and a retreatment of Battlestar Galactica was taking an unbelievably HUGE risk. I resisted it at first, and I've been a BG fan since I was a kid. But then I watched it and I would go so far as to say that this is how Battlestar should have been done from the beginning.

Now do we go so far as to say that evidence I just mentioned was built by networks that deliberately sabotaged their sci-fi formats to save money? Oh gosh. Let me think.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:04 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Cardie:
While Ron Moore is indeed a wonderful writer, it was Michael Piller whose career runs parallel with the rise and fall of modern Trek. Moore did not create any of the Trek shows.

Piller came to TNG as head writer after its lackluster first two seasons and made it a huge hit. He also set about developing new talent for the franchise. By the end of TNG, he had initiated Moore, Rene Echevarria, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Joe Menosky and Brannon Braga into the Trek writing pool. He and Berman then created DS9, and he, Berman and Jeri Taylor created Voyager. He then decided he wanted to move away from Trek. (I think this was during the first season of Voyager, but I'm not sure.)

Moore, Echevarria, Wolfe and showrunner Ira Behr managed to keep up the quality on DS9. Taylor and Braga had less luck with Voyager. Braga is not a bad writer when working for a strong showrunner. I just don't think he knows how to run a writing staff.

Enterprise is the first modern Trek series to have no involvement by Michael Piller, and it shows.

Cardie

Thanks Cardie,

I think I gained some sort of Denoblian dyslexia whilst writing who was responsible for DS9 and Voyager pilots. Glad your here to set the record straight!

However, I do believe the assertion that Berman had any real creative input into DS9 and such isn't warrented. Having seen the sort of lame ass crap Berman writes on Enterprise I can't think but I'm right, and I've heard rumour to that affect.

And Braga is incredibly overated. I can remember people going on about how he handles those "time travel things" so well. Uuuhhh, riiiight. What rubbish!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:19 AM

HJERMSTED

Dead Zone is a great show but I think a lot of its success is due to its shortened season (13 episodes a year) and long waiting period between new seasons. This approach allows the writing staff to hone in on the strongest stories and take more time perfecting the scripts. It also leaves the audience wanting more.

The Sopranos uses the same model.

Part of the reason the Star Trek premise has grown to suck over the years is its adherence to producing 26 episodes a year (up until the last two seasons of Enterprise which have been shortened). Trek became a script grinding machine where stories were churned out just to meet deadlines regardless of quality, plausibility or continuity.

The 26 episodes a season grind also takes a toll on the talent... especially on Trek stages where lead actors are known to put in 18 hour days.

I for one would be happy for 13 episode seasons of my favorite shows if it meant higher quality and happier actors.

Mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:27 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
So you gotta ask yourself... why the frell did Paramount let B&B keep Trek while others who lead in Trek were left to go out and create FAR BETTER SCI-FI in other playgrounds?
It's almost like Paramount keeps Trek around as their staple. They take risks on other projects, perhaps, but they know that Trek has a solid fan base - or at least it did.

Well, I don't think Paramount is the studio known for taking chances. Look at the last few years of movies they have offered... all run of the mill stuff. As far as I can tell, they are the pap factory.

Quote:
Before Enterprise. I know several long-time fans who refuse to watch it. I'm watching in support of Connor Trinneer, who is the one true talent on the show, while at the same time praying someone offers him a better gig. If I could concoct my own, believe me, I would.

I've always contended that ENT has a terrific cast. Before ENT I'd have insisted that any show that can make Scott Bakula look bad is a statistical impossiblity. It's SCOTT BAKULA! If we discover aliens on Alfa Centari we should just stuff him in a shuttle and shoot it there. I can see it now... the shuttle crashes, Scott gets out as the Aliens approch. They see his big smile and the beads of sweat under the tear in his shirt and guess what would happen next? That's right - they'd bring out the green dancing girls in a micron!

Quote:
Also, there's the strong evidence that a sci-fi formatted program isn't exactly guaranteed to bring any network success. There's just too many mundanes out there who think anything sci-fi IS Star Trek and won't bother with it.

Hrrm, well, I'm not sure if that's true today. I might have whole-heartedly agreed with that assertion 10 years ago. Now, I'm thinking we are dealing with a media saturated in futurism and fantasy. After all - real life isn't allowed on your TV screens so fantasies are OK material for TV. Not contraversial and if it is, it's a metaphor (which CEOs don't get, so...).

Quote:
The Dead Zone is good but it had to be seen as risky, and a retreatment of Battlestar Galactica was taking an unbelievably HUGE risk. I resisted it at first, and I've been a BG fan since I was a kid. But then I watched it and I would go so far as to say that this is how Battlestar should have been done from the beginning.

{like Pigs in Space} Mormooons iiiin spaaaaaaace!

Loved the hair.

Quote:
Now do we go so far as to say that evidence I just mentioned was built by networks that deliberately sabotaged their sci-fi formats to save money? Oh gosh. Let me think.

Well, we are talking about competeing studios who want thier current productions to best everyone elses. When Farscape and Firefly came out from left field they were considered threats. For all we know Paramount paid off FOX to cancel Firefly. For all we know, Enteprise is a paid Republican TV show.

It's a Wag the Dog world!

I am just looking in from the outside (let's see - Ghouly lives on a tiny island far, far, north of any of this) so I've no real details but what I see online... but if there is one thing Joss Whedon has taught me is that human nature cannot be denied!

And sister, those Paramount Studio people are definately human in nature!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:33 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Dead Zone is a great show but I think a lot of its success is due to its shortened seasons (13 a year) and long waiting period between new seasons. This approach allows the writing staff to hone in on the strongest stories and take more time perfecting the scripts. It also leaves the audience wanting more.

The Sopranos uses the same model.

Part of the reason the Star Trek premise has grown to suck over the years is its adherence to producing 26 episodes a year (up until the last two seasons of Enterprise which have been shortened). Trek became a script grinding machine where stories were turned out just to meet deadlines regardless of quality, plausibility and continuity.

The 26 episodes a season grind also takes a toll on the talent... especially on Trek stages where lead actors are known to put in 18 hour days.

I for one would be happy for 13 episode seasons of my favorite shows if it meant higher quality and happier actors.

Mattro

Here here!

And, though I hate to say it, Braga actually tried to do this with Enterprise. So I gotta give Braga that at least... though I'm sure there would still be a "blue gel room" sex sequence in every ep.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 5:36 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
I've always contended that ENT has a terrific cast. Before ENT I'd have insisted that any show that can make Scott Bakula look bad is a statistical impossiblity. It's SCOTT BAKULA! If we discover aliens on Alfa Centari we should just stuff him in a shuttle and shoot it there. I can see it now... the shuttle crashes, Scott gets out as the Aliens approch. They see his big smile and the beads of sweat under the tear in his shirt and guess what would happen next? That's right - they'd bring out the green dancing girls in a micron!

You say that like it's a bad thing... wait...

Quote:
Originally posted by, well, me
There's just too many mundanes out there who think anything sci-fi IS Star Trek and won't bother with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghouly
Hrrm, well, I'm not sure if that's true today. I might have whole-heartedly agreed with that assertion 10 years ago.

Believe it. Even if they don't think it's Star Trek, that's the first thing that comes to mind, and the next automatic response is "EWW!" I had to explain Trek to someone from the ground up just a few months ago - she'd never watched it. Any of it. At all. Even if it was "Friends in Space," I know the response would be the same; "Oh, it's, like, star trek, or something," and then they'd flip the page on the TV Guide and move on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghouly
I am just looking in from the outside (let's see - Ghouly lives on a tiny island far, far, north of any of this) so I've no real details but what I see online... but if there is one thing Joss Whedon has taught me is that human nature cannot be denied!

I only have the same sense of betrayal that you have, and the track record of just about every QUALITY sci-fi oriented series on TV. I mean look at what NBC did to Quantum Leap. Yes, they survived 5 seasons of schedule changes, but only because Brandon Bragga (I think?) said, "It shall be so--Quantum Leap will survive."

CapnRahn, however, has seen some things from the inside. Too many, really. You should hear what he has to say about the head honcho at skiffi

I draw...therefore I am.
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 5:49 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghouly
Hrrm, well, I'm not sure if that's true today. I might have whole-heartedly agreed with that assertion 10 years ago.
Believe it. Even if they don't think it's Star Trek, that's the first thing that comes to mind, and the next automatic response is "EWW!" I had to explain Trek to someone from the ground up just a few months ago - she'd never watched it. Any of it. At all. Even if it was "Friends in Space,"

Yea

, well I've watched all the TNG, DS9 but I don't watch them now. Why? Because they are dated. Before it was cutting edge Sci-Fi TV but now it's aged badly, unlike the original Trek (which looks even better now thanks to remastering and replacing lost scenes on the DVDs).

See, only the original show had the writing and the characters to bring us, the viewer, along emotionally. The new Treks are bland with bad characters and Star Wars dialog. Just awful! I can't think of a reason to recommend those shows unless to a die hard fan who will watch anyhing with space ships in it.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghouly
I am just looking in from the outside (let's see - Ghouly lives on a tiny island far, far, north of any of this) so I've no real details but what I see online... but if there is one thing Joss Whedon has taught me is that human nature cannot be denied!
I only have the same sense of betrayal that you have, and the track record of just about every QUALITY sci-fi oriented series on TV. I mean look at what NBC did to Quantum Leap. Yes, they survived 5 seasons of schedule changes, but only because Brandon Bragga (I think?) said, "It shall be so--Quantum Leap will survive.

What? Braga had something to do with Quantum Leap? Does this explain Enterprises Quantum Leap ending last season? Oh... boy.

Quote:
CapnRahn, however, has seen some things from the inside. Too many, really. You should hear what he has to say about the head honcho at skiffi

? ... Take me too the river baby.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:09 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Yea , well I've watched all the TNG, DS9 but I don't watch them now. Why? Because they are dated. Before it was cutting edge Sci-Fi TV but now it's aged badly, unlike the original Trek (which looks even better now thanks to remastering and replacing lost scenes on the DVDs).

I'm having a hard time visualizing any POSSIBLE way to improve Yeoman Rand's beehive.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghouly
What? Braga had something to do with Quantum Leap? Does this explain Enterprises Quantum Leap ending last season? Oh... boy.

I meant Tartikoff - really I did - Brandon Tartikoff, CEO of NBC during the QL years who died in 1997 at age 48 from complications of Hodgkins (thank you E! Online). You'd think I'd remember. Bad fangirl! Bad bad!

I miss the days of Rodenberry when a network would try to tell him how to write his stuff. They said, "I'm sorry, that's too violent," and he made it even more violent, so they said, "Um, Gene, that's still too violent," and he made it EVEN MORE violent. Then they realized what they were up against and said, "Okay, Mr. Rodenberry."

I draw...therefore I am.
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:56 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ right there with ya sister.

And I always thought that Lt. Rand and the beehive was an Ayn Rand joke. You know, the character was a dig at people... with beehives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE