Thoughts on Star Trek

[Anguirus]

And no one will ever know this, but I'm kind of curious as to who at Paramount was most directly responsible for the patterning of DS9 after Babylon 5. There are differences, especially in the beginning, but it's still pretty bleeding obvious.

Why not?

JMS actually brought the idea of Bab5 to Paramount first and they told him that they didn't do Trek Shows without a ship, so he went elsewhere, and lo a couple years after that they come out with DS9.

If nothing, it's very obvious where they got the idea.

I know all that. What I'm wondering is what jerk of an executive was most responsible for stealing his ideas. According to JMS, he presented his stuff to Paramount, who started out enthusiastic but then changed their tune and said no. Then some time later, right after B5 got picked up but before it went into production, Walter Koenig heard about the new Trek series, recognized its obvious similarities to B5, and told JMS over lunch. Shortly thereafter, DS9 was announced and a panicky WB almost killed B5 on the spot.

The object of my curiosity is just who was most responsible for this sordid affair. I'd like to think it was on the executive level, rather than the writers. (B&B wouldn't have done it because they apparently wanted it more like TNG, and I like to think that Behr's not enough of a prick to do that.)

[Uraniun235]

From "Where No One Has Gone Before - A History in Pictures":

Shortly before Gene Roddenberry's death, in late 1991, Paramount executive Brandon Tartikoff asked Rick Berman to create a new, replacement series for Star Trek: The Next Generation, suggesting that it might be, rather than a "Wagon Train to the Stars," a "Rifleman" in space.

"Do you want to do another science-fiction show or another science-fiction show that is based on Star Trek?" Berman asked.
"That's up to you," replied Tartikoff.

Dillard goes on to say that Berman and Piller had already been kicking around ideas for a new series, and Piller saying that they could have done a non-Star Trek series if they'd wanted to.

So it seems that if there's any one man to blame, it may be Tartikoff.

[Anguirus]

I've got thatbook too, but it's not with me, and I didn't remember that it named anyone.

That could be something, but then again, "Rifleman" in space is a bit different from, "Let's have a show about an Earth space station that's a trading post, with a commander in charge who will become a religious figure and 'ascend' at the end of the series, and we'll have a vast and terrible enemy make an alliance with a declining race who recently abandoned a world, whose people are now bitter and desiring revenge. We'll have a big marketplace, a shapeshifter, introduce a cool little warship that the station crew can take out, and have an arc that culminates in an intergalactic war...yes, I came up with all this just now, honest, what's your point?"

[Kurgan]

TOS had sex appeal. They had a brilliant costume designer, at least in terms of designing flimsy costumes for the women.

I know. I'm not saying TOS wasn't without the sex appeal and action. Rather I'm saying that many fans who bemoan the bygone days of Roddenberry's TNG will point out that during TOS Gene was hardly in charge of everything, so he had to concede those "popular parts" in the stories. That's why you had Kirk kissing some girl in a skimpy outfit and getting into a fist-fight every other episode. TNG was known more for its philosophy and politics, etc. So he was taking it in a different direction, then after he was out of the picture the show basically went back to the old standbys (or to the standbys of other tv shows of the time). So I guess this was a "good thing" if you felt those parts of TOS were what made it successful, or a bad thing if you felt Gene's TNG was the epitome of what made Trek Trek.

I guess my thing is I am thinking TNG was successful because it was unique (at the time). I'm sure it couldn't have lasted forever, it had to change, but by becoming too much like other shows or too much like itself, it became boring. Why bother when it's just like everything else? So perhaps the direction B&B took the show might have worked, had they done it well. Ie: make it sexier than the sexy shows out there. Make the action more exciting than the other action shows out there. Make the special effects better than the other sfx driven shows. Make the best danged time travel plots possible, etc. Instead they shot for mediocrity...

Anyway, it's a theory. Perhaps like with TMP, if it's indeed as popular as is being let on here, it had the same strength. Roddenberry's stuff stands out because the rest of the stuff is so repetative and derivative.

In terms of ratings, if I remember right, TNG peaked somewhere during late Season 4 or early Season 5. After that, it was all downhill; there were spikes and valleys, but the general trend after that point for the entire franchise was downward.

That sounds about right. Most people I talked to thought Season 1 was a bit shaky, but loved basically everything until late season 3, then they start bitching about this or that. I forget exactly what season Gene's influence began to wane... but it seems like people start complaining about the time he steps aside.

Season 3 really started deviating from the half-assed Roddenberry ideas, which gave us some of the best TNG episodes like The Defector and Yesterday's Enterprise. We saw more of this in Season 4 with episodes like The Wounded and The Drumhead. The characters could actually be shown to make mistakes, or even to disagree with each other. The production values had finally matured a bit, and the writers hadn't yet forgotten how to write a good Star Trek adventure.

I agree, there was some good stuff there. The last two seasons seemed to have a lot of recycling and crappy plots, but in general I enjoyed the series as a whole. I did feel that season one had some episodes that were slightly annoying or seemed trying to simply one-up or re-write TOS in a more politically correct way. I'm just relating the general consensus of self-confessed trek fans I've either talked to or read.

It's been my contention for some time now that TNG faltered when Berman, when the newer writers that were brought in, stopped writing Star Trek as an adventure series and started writing it more like a mediocre character drama with little bits of action (which is not the same as adventure) thrown in to keep viewers from getting too bored of Troi's issues with her mother or Worf's issues as a father to walk away.

Star Trek was always at it's best when it was an adventure.

I'm inclined to agree. Others I've talked to prefer character development. Roger Ebert once remarked that he watches Star Wars for adventure and Star Trek for character drama. That could be a good thing or just accepting a disappointing reality...

[Patrick Degan]

I know. I'm not saying TOS wasn't without the sex appeal and action. Rather I'm saying that many fans who bemoan the bygone days of Roddenberry's TNG will point out that during TOS Gene was hardly in charge of everything, so he had to concede those "popular parts" in the stories. That's why you had Kirk kissing some girl in a skimpy outfit and getting into a fist-fight every other episode.

Actually, that's a bit of a cliche. Kirk gets involved with some girl in only ten of the original eighty episodes of Star Trek and in four of those, he's actually using her to achieve his real objective; in one instance to get closer to a man he suspects is a war criminal. The fistfights were more common, but then TOS was always an action series.

As far as TNG's more philosophical bent (alleged)... there's a huge difference between pontificating about how tragic war is for forty minutes (TNG) and having to threaten the destruction of an entire civilisation to end a five-hundred year war between two planets and get the ship away from the area in one piece (TOS). The latter approach had more impact which the TNG conflict-free system of dramatic writing never managed to convey...

Do you know what you've just done!

Yes, gentlemen, I've given you back the horrors of war. The Vendikans will now assume you've broken the treaty and are ready to wage real war with real weapons. They'll want to do the same, of course. Only their next attack won't simply tally-up numbers in a computer. It will level your cities, kill your people, and destroy your civilisation. Yes gentlemen, it looks like you've got a real war on your hands. If I were you, I'd start making bombs. Or, you could try another approach: talk. Put an end to it.

—Capt. Kirk to Anan-7, "A Taste Of Armageddon"

[Kurgan]

I know. I'm not saying TOS wasn't without the sex appeal and action. Rather I'm saying that many fans who bemoan the bygone days of Roddenberry's TNG will point out that during TOS Gene was hardly in charge of everything, so he had to concede those "popular parts" in the stories. That's why you had Kirk kissing some girl in a skimpy outfit and getting into a fist-fight every other episode.

Actually, that's a bit of a cliche. Kirk gets involved with some girl in only ten of the original eighty episodes of Star Trek and in four of those, he's actually using her to achieve his real objective; in one instance to get closer to a man he suspects is a war criminal. The fistfights were more common, but then TOS was always an action series.

I've visited the site! That's why I didn't say "Kirk bangs every female alien from here to the the other end of the galaxy!" like the popular joke. Sure it's a bit of an exaggeration to say "every other" but it's a fixture of the show. Kirk does "turn on the charm" quite often. And if it's not Kirk, then it's some other crew member. They turn on that flute music and the soft focus, and often a kiss is involved there someplace.

snip

Sure enough, I'm comparing TOS's approach to TNG's approach. Both had action and romance, they just had it in different proportions and emphases. People remember Picard making speeches, they remember Kirk as a man of action. But yes, he made some sermons of his own, which often resulted in switch hand gestures or at least something exploding.