- What JMS would do with STAR TREK -
Franklin Hummel
This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
series.
In article <199506180916...@relay1.geis.com>
strac...@genie.geis.com writes:
Jesus, I don't even know where to begin. I guess in some ways I'd go
back to the original dream behind the show, which has been watered down in
all subsequent versions. A Starfleet vessel, the Enterprise, on deep
patrol on the very edge of Federation space, where you didn't have a
constant supply of nearby bases which would make the ship into little
more than a transport ship. Exploration and first-contact, and REALLY get
into what First Contact means...the difficulty of establishing common
language (toss the Universal Translator right out), pioneers on the
fringe, hoping one wrong word won't get them into a firefight.
I'd use the stability of the franchise to pursue the kinds of harder
stories less-stable and fiscally guaranteed shows aren't able to pursue.
Use it to mirror and examine current issues through a differently-angled
prism. To balance those, I'd get Harlan or someone else who knows the SF
genre intimately to pull out the most challenging and innovative short
stories to license/option and adapt into our format. I'd re-introduce
conflict between Federation characters. We'd see more of their personal
lives, not just playing cards and using the holodeck, but *real* stuff,
having affairs, getting married, getting fired, dealing with the feelings
that come when you're 45 light-years from home. I'd pack the place with
extras, recurring characters and guest stars to give a sense that this is
a BIG starship, with lots of people, a chain of command rather than five
guys on top and nothing but flunkies beneath, give it the real feel of a
crowded vessel on long, deep patrol.
I'd toss out the technobabble and have the characters ready to fight
their way out of some situations, and think their way out of others not
by reworking devices but reworking *themselves*, outwitting somebody or
something, surviving because they're one step ahead of the other guy.
Definitely more action. I'd treat the discovery of new worlds with more
mystery and wonder, rather than like going to the nearest 7-11 for
coffee. Dead worlds, ancient mysteries, beings beyond easy
comprehension. From time to time, our guys would lose, but they would
come away with a better understanding of themselves and the complex
universe around them.
That'd be a start, albeit a rough one.
jms
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NecronomiCon, 2nd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention
Danvers, Massachusetts, August 18-20, 1995
For information: P.O. Box 1320, Back Bay Annex, Boston, MA 02117 USA
eni...@news.dorsai.org
:
:
: This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
: to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
: series.
Oh no not more of this!! When did JMS become some sort of Sci-Fi TV
god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
the chance to,so forget it
Victor
Timothy W. Lynch
Apologies if anyone sees it twice.]
>hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
>>
>>
>> This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
>>BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
>>to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
>>series.
>>
>... and has little if any place in the r.a.s.* hierarchy *at all*,
>much less on r.a.s.current.
>Why you persist in trying to start as many brush fires as possible
>between the r.a.s.* groups and r.a.sf.tv.b5 is quite beyond me, Mr.
>Hummel, but it got tiresome about half a yer ago.
>Kindly cease and desist.
>[Note that this doesn't say anything about the merits of JMS's ideas;
>please note that before reacting.]
>Tim Lynch
>Fan of both series, reader of both groups -- just tired of the
>infighting
Jim Walters
: Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
: :
: :
: : This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
: : to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
: : series.
: Oh no not more of this!! When did JMS become some sort of Sci-Fi TV
: god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
: the chance to,so forget it
What a snotty attitude! JMS is not the god of Sci-Fi TV, but he is a
professional, and he is responsible for one of the best Sci-Fi TV shows I
have ever seen. If you want to disagree with his ideas, that is fine with
me. Just don't dismiss him like you were brushing off a fly.
As for JMS's ideas, I think they are great. This is exactly the kind of
show that Voyager should have been. A Star Trek show based on his
approach would have me eagerly awaiting each new episode. I haven't felt
that way about a Star Trek series since the period in TNG that produced
episodes like "The Inner Light" and "I, Borg".
I've been a Star Trek fan for 20+ years, and I'm starting to get fed up
with both Paramount and fandom. The attitude at Paramount seems to be "If
it is Star Trek it doesn't have to be good, it will make money anyway".
They can get away with this because Trek fans will watch almost anything
that has the Trek name on it. I know because I've been guilty of it too.
Of the seven Trek movies three were good (II, III, & IV), two were OK (VI
& Generations), and two were turkeys (I & V). They all made tons of money
anyway because Trek fans will watch any Trek, whether it is good, bad, or
indifferent. The first season of TNG had two or three good episodes, a
few more OK episodes, and a LOT of turkeys. Any other TV show of that
quality would have been cancelled after about six or seven episodes. Only
fandom kept it alive. To TNG's credit, it improved to produce a passable
second season, and some great later seasons.
I think that Trek fans are still waiting for that kind of transformation
to take hold of the current crop of Trek. I'm not sure we should. Why
can't we insist that the shows be good now? DS9 isn't bad, but I am not
sure it would still be alive if it didn't have the Trek nameplate. The
only things that Voyager has going for it are the Trek name, and a lot of
squandered potential. If Voyager got cancelled because of bad ratings,
then maybe Paramount would wake up and start insisting of better quality
episodes from the start.
I'm sure that I've just pissed off a lot of people with this post, but I
don't care. Shields up.
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Jim Walters % Never argue with a fool, people may not be able %
% jwal...@clark.net % able to tell the difference. %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jim Walters
: >hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
: >>
: >>
: >> This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
: >>BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
: >>to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
: >>series.
: >>
: >... and has little if any place in the r.a.s.* hierarchy *at all*,
: >much less on r.a.s.current.
It difinitely has a place on the r.a.s.* hierarchy, since this is a post
purely about Star Trek. The ONLY thing this post has to do with B5 is
JMS's credentials. If there a post about what David Brin would do if he
were put in charge of a Star Trek series, would you say that it has no
place on the r.a.s.* hierarchy? After all, Brin's novels are not set in
the Trek universe. If I had posted exactly the same ideas under my own
name, would you have responded so strongly?
As for this topic not belonging on r.a.s.current, you are right. Then
again, HALF of the stuff on r.a.s.current really belongs in r.a.s.misc.
Why the sudden selective enforcement of the hierarchy? Still, you are
right. Let's send all future posts for this topic to r.a.s.misc.
: >Why you persist in trying to start as many brush fires as possible
: >between the r.a.s.* groups and r.a.sf.tv.b5 is quite beyond me, Mr.
: >Hummel, but it got tiresome about half a yer ago.
: >Kindly cease and desist.
I'm only a casual reader of both groups. I have noticed a lot of flack
going back and forth, but I haven't notice that Mr. Hummel is the source.
If that is the case, then he should stop. But the original post does
raise a lot of ideas worthy of discussion. So far all I have seen is Mr.
Hummel getting flamed for making a post that contains the letters JMS.
: >[Note that this doesn't say anything about the merits of JMS's ideas;
: >please note that before reacting.]
: >Tim Lynch
: >Fan of both series, reader of both groups -- just tired of the
: >infighting
Jim Walters
Also tired of the infighting
Franklin Hummel
>>> This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
>>>BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
>>>to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
>>>series.
>>>
>
>>... and has little if any place in the r.a.s.* hierarchy *at all*,
>>much less on r.a.s.current.
Is anyone home???
A long, detailed discussion of what the producer of one of
the major SF TV series on today on how he would producer STAR TREK
if given the chance has NOTHING to do with STAR TREK???
Ha. Ha. HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHHAA!!!
Why isn't this relevant to the rec.startrek groups then? Tell
us all! We're waiting.
>>Why you persist in trying to start as many brush fires as possible
>>between the r.a.s.* groups and r.a.sf.tv.b5 is quite beyond me, Mr.
>>Hummel, but it got tiresome about half a yer ago.
>
>>Kindly cease and desist.
to endlessly and mindlessly suck-up to STAR TREK to be here.
Look, bud. I was a STAR TREK fan for over 25+ years. I was
sitting in front of a TV in a neighbor's home (because they had a
color TV!) the day the first episode aired in the 1960s. Where were
you?
I helped run a hell of a lot of TREK conventions in the 80s and
have been on countless panels dealing with TREK at a number of conventions
as well. I've had TREK actors in my home for dinner. An episode of TNG
was produced in great part to -my- efforts.
So, bud, if you don't like hearing what I or others have to say
about TREK which doesn't fit into you narrow, little mind, then I suggest
you just turn your eyes away from the screen or put me in your killfile.
But don't you dare tell me I have no right to critize TREK. After
what I -gave- STAR TREK in the last quarter of a century, I have every damn
right to do so.
And, by the way, bud, you know, I posted that message from JMS
BECAUSE I THOUGHT FOLKS HERE MIGHT BE INTERESTED -- NOTHING MORE!! And
because a lot of people here have made the same comments JMS did.
So, guess what, bud? I wasn't trying to 'cause trouble in the
slightest. I was trying to pass on some information I thought might be
on interest to Trekkers here. There was nothing in anyway in my post
to show in -anyway- I was "trying to make trouble" -- because I wasn't.
YOU MADE THE TROUBLE, BUD. Deal with it, jerk.
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <3s1th5$t...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@alumni.caltech.edu writes:
>>>> This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
>>>>BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
>>>>to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
>>>>series.
>>>>
>>
>>>... and has little if any place in the r.a.s.* hierarchy *at all*,
>>>much less on r.a.s.current.
>
> A long, detailed discussion of what the producer of one of
>the major SF TV series on today on how he would producer STAR TREK
>if given the chance has NOTHING to do with STAR TREK???
I may have overstated the case *slightly*. It might have been
relevant to r.a.s.misc if presented differently. R.a.s.current,
however, is not an option -- if you don't know why, I suggest you
check the charters for the groups.
And I stand by my original statement -- you have been crossposting to
the r.a.s.* groups for months now, primarily bringing over elements
designed to spark or otherwise continue the B5/ST war that seems
distressingly plentiful in *both* groups. Regardless of your motives,
these are no longer appropriate messages -- and you are damned sure
not the appropriate messenger any more.
> Oh, so sorry if I offend you. I didn't know that one had
>to endlessly and mindlessly suck-up to STAR TREK to be here.
Proof positive, if any were needed, that you have no idea who you're
talking to. Have you read anything I've written this year? "Mindless
sucking up" is not exactly the way I'd phrase it.
The remainder of this post is nothing but flames which will be
answered privately. I hope this ends the matter.
Tim Lynch
Peronet Despeignes
: Apologies if anyone sees it twice.]
: >hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
: >Why you persist in trying to start as many brush fires as possible
: >between the r.a.s.* groups and r.a.sf.tv.b5 is quite beyond me, Mr.
: >Hummel, but it got tiresome about half a yer ago.
: >Kindly cease and desist.
I don't see what problem there is with a meaningful discussion on current
problems in the ST series (many of which you comment on each week). If
JMS comments on the series have merit, what's the harm in having them
introduced into the discussion? His comments are as appopriate as anyone
else's.
: >[Note that this doesn't say anything about the merits of JMS's ideas;
: >please note that before reacting.]
: fan of both shows.
Same here.
: > -- just tired of the
: >infighting
Discussion (not necessarily conflict), however heated at times, can be
healthy as long as it doesnt degenerate into mindless drivel of "my show
is better than your show"
Perry D.
Jet Silverman
that could beat re-runs of "Video Aquarium" in the ratings.
Carmen Frost
>Timothy W. Lynch (tly...@alumni.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: [This is a correction of a previous, about-to-be-cancelled post.
>: Apologies if anyone sees it twice.]
>: >hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
>: >Why you persist in trying to start as many brush fires as possible
>: >between the r.a.s.* groups and r.a.sf.tv.b5 is quite beyond me, Mr.
>: >Hummel, but it got tiresome about half a yer ago.
>: >Kindly cease and desist.
>I don't see what problem there is with a meaningful discussion on current
>problems in the ST series (many of which you comment on each week). If
>JMS comments on the series have merit, what's the harm in having them
>introduced into the discussion? His comments are as appopriate as anyone
>else's.
I agree. If JMS comments on ST, then it is appropriate for this newsgroup.
I'm the first one who wouldn't want a conflict between the 2 newsgroups but an
intelligent discussion by a producer of a SF show on what he'd do with ST is
probably of interest to many who read THIS newsgroup! Of course, it is up to
each reader to determine whether they agree with the comments or not.
Carmen
Ronald
> Maybe JMS should post here on his own *after* he comes up with a show
> that could beat re-runs of "Video Aquarium" in the ratings.
But then again (to paraphrase Joe):
Why write down to the lowest common denominator?
If you wanna watch fish, enjoy; we already know you like cheese. ;)
Ron
******************************************************************************
Ron Jennings urjen...@cc.memphis.edu * Not everyone in Memphis
Electronic Engineering Technology * is a
The University of Memphis * tight-assed postal inspector.
******************************************************************************
I've got duct tape & I'm not afraid to use it.
******************************************************************************
Dark Penguin
Hummel) wrote:
[...]
> I helped run a hell of a lot of TREK conventions in the 80s and
>have been on countless panels dealing with TREK at a number of conventions
>as well. I've had TREK actors in my home for dinner. An episode of TNG
>was produced in great part to -my- efforts.
>
> So, bud, if you don't like hearing what I or others have to say
>about TREK which doesn't fit into you narrow, little mind, then I suggest
>you just turn your eyes away from the screen or put me in your killfile.
>
> But don't you dare tell me I have no right to critize TREK. After
>what I -gave- STAR TREK in the last quarter of a century, I have every damn
>right to do so.
> YOU MADE THE TROUBLE, BUD. Deal with it, jerk.
What a classy response. Tim, you should be ashamed of yourself -- we
ought to be grateful to have our lives enobled by the presence of a Grand
Old Man of Star Trek such as Mr. Hummel here, whose untempered passion
stands as a model for those lesser folk hobbled by such concepts as
civility and temperance. Bravo!
Regards,
Bryan Byun e-mail: bb...@oz.net
--
"I have known what it was like to be hungry, but I always went right to a restaurant."
Ring Lardner, Jr.
David Roy
Despeignes) writes:
[most of previous posts deleted]
>Discussion (not necessarily conflict), however heated at times, can be
>healthy as long as it doesnt degenerate into mindless drivel of "my
>show is better than your show"
The only problem is, this kind of discussion usually does end in the
"my show is better than your show," at least if past discussions are an
example.
I'm actually getting my popcorn ready for this fight.
Dave Roy
--
*****************************************************************************
* Dave Roy hi...@ix.netcom.com *
* Garak: "Are you sure that's the point, Doctor?" *
* Dr. Bashir: "Of course. What else could it be?" *
* Garak: "That you should never tell the same lie twice." *
* ST:DS9 "Improbable Cause" *
*****************************************************************************
Timothy W. Lynch
>Maybe JMS should post here on his own *after* he comes up with a show
>that could beat re-runs of "Video Aquarium" in the ratings.
And this is going too far in the *other* direction, and is a shining
example of why I thought the post was inappropriate. Something
begging to start a Trek/B5 brushfire is simply Not a Good Idea at this
juncture, regardless of how interesting the ideas are (and I found
them quite interesting indeed).
Tim
Scott Hollifield
: So, bud, if you don't like hearing what I or others have to say
: about TREK which doesn't fit into you narrow, little mind, then I suggest
: you just turn your eyes away from the screen or put me in your killfile.
:
: But don't you dare tell me I have no right to critize TREK. After
: what I -gave- STAR TREK in the last quarter of a century, I have every damn
: right to do so.
Mr. Roddenberry! Welcome to Usenet! I'd heard you were dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
Peronet Despeignes
: In <3s274k$5...@decaxp.harvard.edu> desp...@fas.harvard.edu (Peronet
: Despeignes) writes:
: [most of previous posts deleted]
: >Discussion (not necessarily conflict), however heated at times, can be
: >healthy as long as it doesnt degenerate into mindless drivel of "my
: >show is better than your show"
: The only problem is, this kind of discussion usually does end in the
: "my show is better than your show," at least if past discussions are an
: example.
: I'm actually getting my popcorn ready for this fight.
Can you pass the butter?
Perry D.
:)
Bonnie
: eni...@news.dorsai.org wrote:
: : Oh no not more of this!! When did JMS become some sort of Sci-Fi TV
: : god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
: : the chance to,so forget it
: What a snotty attitude! JMS is not the god of Sci-Fi TV, but he is a
: professional, and he is responsible for one of the best Sci-Fi TV shows I
: have ever seen. If you want to disagree with his ideas, that is fine with
: me. Just don't dismiss him like you were brushing off a fly.
Right. The original post seemed perfectly reasonable in and of
itself. The heat it generates obviously comes from the backdrop
of B5 vs Trek arguments here, some of it intelligent, most of it
inane.
: As for JMS's ideas, I think they are great. This is exactly the kind of
: show that Voyager should have been. A Star Trek show based on his
: approach would have me eagerly awaiting each new episode. I haven't felt
: that way about a Star Trek series since the period in TNG that produced
: episodes like "The Inner Light" and "I, Borg".
I agreed with a few points. Particularly that bit about reinserting
a sense of wonder into the shows. As a matter of fact, I've just
written about that in another post! TOS had it, none of the others
do. IMHO DS9 stands on other merits, but Voyager really ought to
have it, given its situation, but doesn't.
: I've been a Star Trek fan for 20+ years, and I'm starting to get fed up
: with both Paramount and fandom. The attitude at Paramount seems to be "If
: it is Star Trek it doesn't have to be good, it will make money anyway".
: They can get away with this because Trek fans will watch almost anything
: that has the Trek name on it. I know because I've been guilty of it too.
: Of the seven Trek movies three were good (II, III, & IV), two were OK (VI
: & Generations), and two were turkeys (I & V). They all made tons of money
: anyway because Trek fans will watch any Trek, whether it is good, bad, or
: indifferent. The first season of TNG had two or three good episodes, a
: few more OK episodes, and a LT of turkeys. Any other TV show of that
: quality would have been cancelled after about six or seven episodes. Only
: fandom kept it alive. To TNG's credit, it improved to produce a passable
: second season, and some great later seasons.
: I think that Trek fans are still waiting for that kind of transformation
: to take hold of the current crop of Trek. I'm not sure we should. Why
: can't we insist that the shows be good now? DS9 isn't bad, but I am not
: sure it would still be alive if it didn't have the Trek nameplate. The
Whoa, here, don't assume the reasons people watch the different shows,
just because they're not your preference. I hardly watch things just
because they have the Trek name. I stopped watching TNG regularly
halfway through, and still don't really care for Voyager. I loved
TOS and I love DS9, in fact, it's th only tv I watch regularly. I know
several fans of DS9 that don't care for any other Trek. So it's clearly
not the "Trek nameplate" that keeps it alive. In fact, a good
porportion of general Trek fandom seems to have a grudge against it
because "it doesn't go anywhere" and doesn't follow "Roddenbury's
vision." It has a few flaws, what tv show doesn't? It lacks that
sense of wonder, and it has the general Trek reluctance to change
anything. But it has good to phenomonal dialogue writing, terrific
characters, an interesting situation and politics, and great acting.
If B5 had anywhere near as good dialogue, I might be willing to
watch it, it's story sounds interesting enough. But dialogue
is *my particular sticking point. It's a matter of taste.
: The only things that Voyager has going for it are the Trek name, and a lot of
: squandered potential. If Voyager got cancelled because of bad ratings,
: then maybe Paramount would wake up and start insisting of better quality
: episodes from the start.
It's young yet. It does seem to be taking a long time to find a niche,
but it might yet succeed. It has had some pretty snappy dialogue,
and decent acting going for it. But as a whole it seems pretty
purposeless..
: I'm sure that I've just pissed off a lot of people with this post, but I
: don't care. Shields up.
: --
: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
: % Jim Walters % Never argue with a fool, people may not be able %
: % jwal...@clark.net % able to tell the difference. %
: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Bonnie
Tom Masters
>
>
> This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
>BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
>to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
>series.
>
>
Jim Walters
that group.]
Bonnie (bjh...@ouray.cudenver.edu) wrote:
: Jim Walters (jwal...@clark.net) wrote:
: : I think that Trek fans are still waiting for that kind of transformation
: : to take hold of the current crop of Trek. I'm not sure we should. Why
: : can't we insist that the shows be good now? DS9 isn't bad, but I am not
: : sure it would still be alive if it didn't have the Trek nameplate. The
: Whoa, here, don't assume the reasons people watch the different shows,
: just because they're not your preference. I hardly watch things just
: because they have the Trek name. I stopped watching TNG regularly
: halfway through, and still don't really care for Voyager. I loved
: TOS and I love DS9, in fact, it's th only tv I watch regularly. I know
: several fans of DS9 that don't care for any other Trek. So it's clearly
: not the "Trek nameplate" that keeps it alive. In fact, a good
: porportion of general Trek fandom seems to have a grudge against it
: because "it doesn't go anywhere" and doesn't follow "Roddenbury's
: vision." It has a few flaws, what tv show doesn't? It lacks that
: sense of wonder, and it has the general Trek reluctance to change
: anything. But it has good to phenomonal dialogue writing, terrific
: characters, an interesting situation and politics, and great acting.
: If B5 had anywhere near as good dialogue, I might be willing to
: watch it, it's story sounds interesting enough. But dialogue
: is *my particular sticking point. It's a matter of taste.
OK, I've calmed down since my original post on this topic. I was annoyed
by someone dismissing good ideas just because they came from JMS, and
then I sort of slipped into a general rant about things in Trek that
annoy me.
Let me clarify what I mean by shows surviving only because they have the
Trek name. Imagine that TOS never happened, and that TNG had to create
its audience base from scratch. Based on the quality of its first season,
it would have been cancelled in less than two months. The same can be
said of Voyager. DS9 might have faired better, but I think its ratings
would be a lot lower if it were the first Trek series, and didn't have a
ready made audience base to draw on. Even if only 50% of Star Trek fans
watch DS9, that is still a large audience base that DS9 gets "for free".
I don't know if I would have stayed with DS9 through its low spots if it
weren't STAR TREK. The Trek name and Trek fan loyalty give these shows an
audience base that they wouldn't have otherwise had. This gives the shows
more time to find themselves, which can be a good thing. This also has
the disadvantage of letting Paramount get a way with feading us Star Drek
instead of Star Trek.
: : The only things that Voyager has going for it are the Trek name, and a lot of
: : squandered potential. If Voyager got cancelled because of bad ratings,
: : then maybe Paramount would wake up and start insisting of better quality
: : episodes from the start.
: It's young yet. It does seem to be taking a long time to find a niche,
: but it might yet succeed. It has had some pretty snappy dialogue,
: and decent acting going for it. But as a whole it seems pretty
: purposeless..
Voyager may yet find its niche, but it may not. The acting isn't bad,
but I disagree about the dialogue ("Take the cheese to sick bay!"). As
you said, the whole show seems purposeless. The question is, how much
time should we allow the show to find its niche? I think we have been
too patient already. If Paramount refuses to give us good episodes, then
we should refuse to watch them.
Minoc Drakkir
[snip]
>Voyager may yet find its niche, but it may not. The acting isn't bad,
>but I disagree about the dialogue ("Take the cheese to sick bay!"). As
>you said, the whole show seems purposeless. The question is, how much
>time should we allow the show to find its niche? I think we have been
>too patient already. If Paramount refuses to give us good episodes, then
>we should refuse to watch them.
I have to agree with you. Since TOS we have had 3 spin-offs, seven
movies, an animated series, several comic series, and thousands of
books, yet we are suppose to give them time to develop Voyager? I
just can't buy into that. They (Berman and Co.) have enough
experience now to give us the best Trek possible, they know what has
worked and what hasn't. They have a large background to draw from and
a huge budget, so there is no excuse from the junk we have been
getting. The universe is suppose to be a place of wonder, yet we see
the same stories over and over again. (How many times do we have to
see a main character split in two? How many time travel episodes are
we going to get? Why is the universe in Trek so unstable that space
anomalies are a weekly event? Why do the writers have their finger on
the magic reset button to reset the universe back to its original
state at the end of the episode?)
Would anybody watch ER if it had the same goofy writing as Voyager?
Would you expect them to watch Seinfeld if it wasn't funny? Should
they wait THREE years until they hit their stride? No of course not,
but we are suppose to do this with Voyager? When it gets good, I will
watch it, but until then they are not going to count me as a viewer.
Thank God TNG is syndicated so I get the re-runs, even at its worst it
was more palatable than Voyager thus far. I really enjoy DS9 when it
sticks to character stories. B5 is a must see every week.
Sincerely,
Drakkir
dra...@texas.net
Ted McCoy
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3s1th5$t...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@alumni.caltech.edu writes:
>>>>BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
>>>>to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
>>>>series.
>>>>
>>
>>>much less on r.a.s.current.
>
>
>
> Is anyone home???
>
> A long, detailed discussion of what the producer of one of
>the major SF TV series on today on how he would producer STAR TREK
>if given the chance has NOTHING to do with STAR TREK???
>
>
> Why isn't this relevant to the rec.startrek groups then? Tell
>us all! We're waiting.
(Man, you're even starting to *sound* like Ford....)
Anyway, I think you're sort of right on this point. Your post obviously
wasn't appropriate to rec.arts.startrek.current, but it *was* appropriate
to the rec.arts.startrek.misc.
But think about it. If that had been your only post, I really doubt Tim
would have complained. (This group is filled with stuff that belongs in
rec.arts.startrek.misc.) He was responding to a pattern of posts, not just
this one post. Is that pattern off-topic? No. But you still ought to know
better. You're opinion is clear; there's no reason to try to relight the
same fires over and over. (Actually that should be a lesson for me as
well. Not about starting fires over and over, but about diving back into
the same silly fire over and over.)
Anyway, the situation is like Ford's constant "I hate B5" posts on
rec.arts.sf.tv. Posting his opinion once is fine; he's entitled to his
opinion. (And mentioning that B5's ratings are poor is fine -- once.)
But repeating his comments over and over, just to restart this goofy
flame wars, is a waste of everybody's time. Same thing with your posts
here.
>>>Why you persist in trying to start as many brush fires as possible
>>>between the r.a.s.* groups and r.a.sf.tv.b5 is quite beyond me, Mr.
>>>Hummel, but it got tiresome about half a yer ago.
>>
>>>Kindly cease and desist.
>
>
> Oh, so sorry if I offend you. I didn't know that one had
>to endlessly and mindlessly suck-up to STAR TREK to be here.
Having seen much endless and mindless sucking up to Star Trek here lately.
> Look, bud. I was a STAR TREK fan for over 25+ years. I was
>sitting in front of a TV in a neighbor's home (because they had a
>color TV!) the day the first episode aired in the 1960s. Where were
>you?
>
> I helped run a hell of a lot of TREK conventions in the 80s and
>have been on countless panels dealing with TREK at a number of conventions
>as well. I've had TREK actors in my home for dinner. An episode of TNG
>was produced in great part to -my- efforts.
>
> So, bud, if you don't like hearing what I or others have to say
>about TREK which doesn't fit into you narrow, little mind, then I suggest
>you just turn your eyes away from the screen or put me in your killfile.
>
> But don't you dare tell me I have no right to critize TREK. After
>what I -gave- STAR TREK in the last quarter of a century, I have every damn
>right to do so.
Trek owes you exactly what you owe it: nothing.
And being a mindless Trek fan ten years ago doesn't justify being a mindless
Trek basher now.
> And, by the way, bud, you know, I posted that message from JMS
>BECAUSE I THOUGHT FOLKS HERE MIGHT BE INTERESTED -- NOTHING MORE!! And
>because a lot of people here have made the same comments JMS did.
How noble of you.
> So, guess what, bud? I wasn't trying to 'cause trouble in the
>slightest. I was trying to pass on some information I thought might be
>on interest to Trekkers here. There was nothing in anyway in my post
>to show in -anyway- I was "trying to make trouble" -- because I wasn't.
>
> YOU MADE THE TROUBLE, BUD. Deal with it, jerk.
(Perhaps you misread "Tim Lynch" as "Ted McCoy"? Unless you just don't know
who you're responding to....)
Ted
Ted McCoy
Ronald <urjen...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>If you wanna watch fish, enjoy; we already know you like cheese. ;)
Cheese rules! Anybody noticed that Superhero Burger at McDonalds? *TWO*
kinds of cheese! (Well, pseudo-cheese anyway.)
Ted
Jim Walters
: I reread the original post and thought they were all good ideas. Esp.
: the bit about tossing out the Universal Translator, though I have no idea
: how it could be explained in the Trek universe. And it would be
On Voyager that would be fairly easy. For example:
Torres: I'm afraid I have some bad news captain - the Universal
Translator has been destroyed.
Janeway: What happened?
Torres: Nelix spilled some of his "coffee" on it, and it disolved.
Janeway: Can you replace it?
Torres: We don't have a spare Universal Translator in the ships stores.
Voyager is a new ship, and since its first mission was in a well
known region of space, nobody thought we would really need it.
Janeway: Can you replicate a new one?
Torres: No, the Universal Translator uses a [random technical sounding
word] in its [random technical sounding word], and those are just
too complex to replicate.
Janeway: Can we build a new one, or get one from one of the local
civilizations?
Torres: We could build a new one if we had some [random technical
sounding word], but we would have to mine it ourselves. It
will take months just to find a planet that has the ores. The
Kazon might be able to build a Universal Translator, but it's
unlikely they will want to do us any favors. In any case, how
will we negotiate with them if we don't have a universal
translator? We can't even talk to Nelix and Kes anymore.
: very difficult to give the kind of attention he's talking about to
: both First Contact and exploration issues, *and* personal matters
: such as affairs, divorce, and job changes, *and* more 'lower deck'
: and recurring characters. He's talking more than one hour a week, there.
Well, you don't have to do it all in one episode. There is plenty of time
in a season for all of the above. For example, recurring characters
should be fairly easy to fit it. O'Brien, Guinen, and Barcley(?) were a
good example of recurring characters on TNG. Garek is a good recurring
character on DS9. Just let them show up without having to build the
script around them. One way to do this is have something significant
happen on the "B" shift, when all the "A" shift main characters are
asleep. They will call the main characters as soon as things start
happening, but at least we will see new people on the bridge.
acc...@vaxa.hofstra.edu
> Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
> :
> :
> : This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
> : to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
> : series.
>
> Oh no not more of this!! When did JMS become some sort of Sci-Fi TV
> god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
> the chance to,so forget it
>
Thats where you are wrong!! Any script that does not make it in
Berman's view of ST is going over to B5 with some trek writers and is making it
big over there. Those shows are more fun to watch.
-john
Bonnie
: OK, I've calmed down since my original post on this topic. I was annoyed
: by someone dismissing good ideas just because they came from JMS, and
: then I sort of slipped into a general rant about things in Trek that
: annoy me.
I can understand that. I certainly get riled up over attacks on ds9 :)
I reread the original post and thought they were all good ideas. Esp.
the bit about tossing out the Universal Translator, though I have no idea
how it could be explained in the Trek universe. And it would be
very difficult to give the kind of attention he's talking about to
both First Contact and exploration issues, *and* personal matters
such as affairs, divorce, and job changes, *and* more 'lower deck'
and recurring characters. He's talking more than one hour a week, there.
: Let me clarify what I mean by shows surviving only because they have the
: Trek name. Imagine that TOS never happened, and that TNG had to create
: its audience base from scratch. Based on the quality of its first season,
: it would have been cancelled in less than two months. The same can be
: said of Voyager. DS9 might have faired better, but I think its ratings
: would be a lot lower if it were the first Trek series, and didn't have a
: ready made audience base to draw on. Even if only 50% of Star Trek fans
: watch DS9, that is still a large audience base that DS9 gets "for free".
: I don't know if I would have stayed with DS9 through its low spots if it
: weren't STAR TREK. The Trek name and Trek fan loyalty give these shows an
: audience base that they wouldn't have otherwise had. This gives the shows
: more time to find themselves, which can be a good thing. This also has
: the disadvantage of letting Paramount get a way with feading us Star Drek
: instead of Star Trek.
Okay, you may be right in this. No way of knowing for sure. But then,
if it weren't for TOS and Star Wars, there may have never really been
any kind of development of science fiction in tv and movies at all.
Or there may have been. The world of tv viewership is a very strange
one, and is only remotely linked to quality, as I'm sure a fan of
B5 would agree. Look what happened with I'll Fly Away, which was the
best series I've ever seen on tv! But if it gives DS9 enough ratings
to keep going, I can't complain too much, even if I find too many inane
posts of lukewarm viewers commenting on it, even if the producers
are compromising a little to keep these viewers happy. Just so they
don't compromise too much! IMO, as I'm sure know by now, DS9 is
quality Trek already.
: Voyager may yet find its niche, but it may not. The acting isn't bad,
: but I disagree about the dialogue ("Take the cheese to sick bay!"). As
: you said, the whole show seems purposeless. The question is, how much
: time should we allow the show to find its niche? I think we have been
: too patient already. If Paramount refuses to give us good episodes, then
: we should refuse to watch them.
I think we only disagree here as to how long to give it (and portions of
the dialogue, I liked the cheese line, but, yes, it is sometimes as bad as it
is good others.) I'm giving it at least a little into the second season.
They have good potential in the cast of characters, even if they haven't
developed it yet. And I want to see the "Seska" episode. "State of Flux"
was wonderful, and I want to see where it leads. I'm willing to overlook
a few plotholes for a good story.
Mr. Damon Kelly
> Thats where you are wrong!! Any script that does not make it in
>Berman's view of ST is going over to B5 with some trek writers and is making it
>big over there. Those shows are more fun to watch.
>
>-john
That's a dubious assertion. What would make such scripts more likely
to appear on B5 than, say, upcoming episodes of "Space," "The
X-Files," or even "Family Matters?" Just because D. C. Fontana
happened to write an episode of B5 doesn't mean that Berman rejected
the script.
-d
--
People who declare that money isn't everything don't pay too many bills.
da...@umbc.edu da...@umbc.bitnet
FordaT
run the Boy Scouts of America.
It's just not a very good idea......
IMHO of course.....
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
Timothy W. Lynch
[to Franklin Hummel]
>Anyway, I think you're sort of right on this point. Your post obviously
>wasn't appropriate to rec.arts.startrek.current, but it *was* appropriate
>to the rec.arts.startrek.misc.
>But think about it. If that had been your only post, I really doubt Tim
>would have complained. (This group is filled with stuff that belongs in
>rec.arts.startrek.misc.) He was responding to a pattern of posts, not just
>this one post. Is that pattern off-topic? No. But you still ought to know
>better. You're opinion is clear; there's no reason to try to relight the
>same fires over and over.
Just to clarify matters and hopefully lay this issue to rest for good
... Ted's reading of me is quite accurate. In a vacuum, the post was
fine (albeit better for .misc and .current). It's the pattern, the
"cycle of hatred" [to put in in B5 terms] that provoked my response.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Given that the public issue has died down (and that Mr. Hummel has
informed me in private, in between obscenities, that he is no longer
reading mail from me), I think this should serve as the nail in the
coffin.
My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by the whole mess.
Tim Lynch
tly...@alumni.caltech.edu
"Well, it's easy to be a SAINT in paradise."
-- Sisko, "The Maquis, Part II"
John Pietrzak
>Putting JMS in charge of TREK would the same as letting MIchael Jackson
>run the Boy Scouts of America.
Or letting FordaT post on a newsgroup.
Ford, you sure haven't lost your touch. I continue to be amazed how
well you utilize language to evoke emotion (albeit singularly negative
emotion). Do you consciously attempt to make enemies out of people?
John
--
Babylon 5 -- a surfboard riding the Tsunami
Todd Horowitz
would've made a useful addition to r.a.s.misc.
In article <hummelDA...@netcom.com>,
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello???
>
> Is anyone home???
>
> A long, detailed discussion of what the producer of one of
>the major SF TV series on today on how he would producer STAR TREK
>if given the chance has NOTHING to do with STAR TREK???
> Ha. Ha. HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHHAA!!!
> Why isn't this relevant to the rec.startrek groups then? Tell
>us all! We're waiting.
> Oh, so sorry if I offend you. I didn't know that one had
>to endlessly and mindlessly suck-up to STAR TREK to be here.
> Look, bud. I was a STAR TREK fan for over 25+ years. I was
>sitting in front of a TV in a neighbor's home (because they had a
>color TV!) the day the first episode aired in the 1960s. Where were
>you?
> I helped run a hell of a lot of TREK conventions in the 80s and
>have been on countless panels dealing with TREK at a number of conventions
>as well. I've had TREK actors in my home for dinner. An episode of TNG
>was produced in great part to -my- efforts.
> So, bud, if you don't like hearing what I or others have to say
>about TREK which doesn't fit into you narrow, little mind, then I suggest
>you just turn your eyes away from the screen or put me in your killfile.
> But don't you dare tell me I have no right to critize TREK. After
>what I -gave- STAR TREK in the last quarter of a century, I have every damn
>right to do so.
Let's get this straight: Tim asks you to stop stirring up "Bab5 vs.
Star Trek" muck and keep non-current stuff out of r.a.s.current, and the
response is:
(a) Tim must be a Star Trek "suck up"
(b) You can do whatever you want because you HAD STAR TREK ACTORS
OVER FOR DINNER?
Now, my killfile automatically eliminates any article appearing
here with "babylon 5" in the subject line (and my killfile on the B5
group eliminates all ST posts), so me commenting on whether you have made a
habit of fanning the B5 vs. ST flames would be on the order of you calling
Tim Lynch a "Star Trek suck up", i.e. the mark of a boor making accusations
without bothering to check his information first.
However, as to the question of whether you get to have your way
with this newsgroup, regardless of whether your posts are within
the charter, because you
(a) Watched the original Star Trek when it first came out
(b) Ran convention panels
(c) had dinner with Leonard Nimoy
(d) were Gene Roddenberry's podiatrist
(e) personally collected forty million aluminum cans from the streets
of L.A. over three decades in order to bankroll the special effects in
"All Good Things...",
I can only laugh. Either ignore Mr. Lynch's accusation or defend yourself
in a rational fashion. If this post is representative example of your contri-
butions, then you're just another reason why this newsgroup is increasingly
dominated by trash and adolescent flamewars.
-todd
Tom Thatcher
>In article <DADMs...@dorsai.org>, eni...@news.dorsai.org () writes:
>> Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> :
>> :
>> : This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
>> : BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
>> : to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
>> : series.
>> :
>>
>> Oh no not more of this!! When did JMS become some sort of Sci-Fi TV
>> god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
>> the chance to,so forget it
>>
> Thats where you are wrong!! Any script that does not make it in
>Berman's view of ST is going over to B5 with some trek writers and is making it
>big over there. Those shows are more fun to watch.
As much as I like B5, John, I have to correct you on this...something like
75% of B5 scripts are written BY jms, and the others depend heavily on
his outlines for major plot developments. Not much scope for outside
influence. B5 is very much a personal vision.
--
Tom Thatcher | You can give a PC to a Homo habilis,
University of Rochester Cancer Center | and he'll use it, but he'll use it
tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | to crack nuts.
Simon Shurville
> And I stand by my original statement -- you have been crossposting to
> the r.a.s.* groups for months now, primarily bringing over elements
> designed to spark or otherwise continue the B5/ST war that seems
> distressingly plentiful in *both* groups. Regardless of your motives,
> these are no longer appropriate messages -- and you are damned sure
> not the appropriate messenger any more.
And who are you to say who can post and what they can write about?
BTW I enjoyed the post a lot because JMS is a clever and insightful
chap. It was relevent because it showed exactly where current star trek
is going wrong. The JMS plot line would get me interested in trek
again. As things stand trek is living on fast depreciating capital and
good will.
Timothy Reed
Argonut. <73441...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> I guess this proves why B5 is way down in the
> ratings while "Star Trek" has been strong for
> decades.
> JMS should concentrate on his own show and maybe
> it won't be on the verge of cancellation EVERY year!
My, my, it must be summer. Time to go out and do some trolling. I find
five inaccuracies in five lines...pretty good average.
_____________________________________________________________________
Timothy Reed Ball Aerospace Systems Group tr...@ball.com
Senior Optics Engineer/2nd Generation Hubble Space Telescope Programs
The opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not necessarily
reflect those of Ball Corporation or of Ball Aerospace.
R. Tang
stretch it out to a 140 year pace.
Still pacing to get home, but doing some exploration on the way
(which is why they're out there in the first place....).
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
STILL just another theatre geek....
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Richard T. Raymer
>
>>Ford, you sure haven't lost your touch. I continue to be amazed how
>>well you utilize language to evoke emotion (albeit singularly negative
>>emotion). Do you consciously attempt to make enemies out of people?
>
^^
Watch it, Ford. That's a run-on sentence.
Remember:
Gharlane is Watching!
Rich
"I stand right on the line that you |Proud member of the Committee for the
keep crossing." |Liberation and Integration of
--Asst. Dir. Skinner |Terrifing Organisms and their
|Reintegration into Society
Amir Shaikh
>jwal...@clark.net (Jim Walters) wrote:
>>Voyager may yet find its niche, but it may not. The acting isn't bad,
>>you said, the whole show seems purposeless. The question is, how much
>>time should we allow the show to find its niche? I think we have been
>>too patient already. If Paramount refuses to give us good episodes, then
>>we should refuse to watch them.
>
>movies, an animated series, several comic series, and thousands of
>books, yet we are suppose to give them time to develop Voyager? I
>Thank God TNG is syndicated so I get the re-runs, even at its worst it
>was more palatable than Voyager thus far. I really enjoy DS9 when it
>sticks to character stories. B5 is a must see every week.
Get serious! I can count the number of memorable TNG episodes on one hand.
I get TNG reruns everyday and I kringe when I see most of them.
DS9? I watch it every week but it seems only the season finale and the first
2 episodes of each season is worth watching. The rest is ho-hum.
Voyager is AT LEAST 2 years ahead of the level TNG was when it first started.
Using your logic, DS9 shouldn't have gotten the time to find its niche either.
Why didn't you complain when TNG was having holodeck after holodeck episodes?
What the heck did that have to do with space exploration?
>we going to get? Why is the universe in Trek so unstable that space
>anomalies are a weekly event? Why do the writers have their finger on
Blame TNG for the above. Heck, even Generations was centered around the same
concept.
Most of you people are unhappy because they dumped the bald, boring and "let's
discuss everything to death" approach to captaincy and brought back something
much more interesting. I'm glad that Voyager doesn't hail everything to death.
Just my piece of cheese ;).
later,
Amir
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amir Shaikh
Centre for Intelligent Machines (CIM) - Department of Electrical Engineering
McGill University, 3480 University St., Montreal, PQ, Canada
LAB PHONE: (514)398-8284 // OFFICE: (514)398-5993 // FAX: (514) 398-6044
I-NET: sha...@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.ca
FordaT
Tuco
: >
: >
: > This post by J. Michael Straczynski, creator and producer of
: >BABYLON 5, originally appeared in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 in response
: >to the question of what he would do if he were producing a STAR TREK
: >series.
: >
: >In article <199506180916...@relay1.geis.com>
: > Jesus, I don't even know where to begin. I guess in some ways I'd go
: >back to the original dream behind the show, which has been watered down in
: >all subsequent versions. A Starfleet vessel, the Enterprise, on deep
: >patrol on the very edge of Federation space, where you didn't have a
Christ on a bike! Now that's a version of Star Trek I'd pay to see,
but as long as Trek, particularly Voyager, is dominated by California
liberals, then there's no chance of any Trek like JMS's vision
appearing.
"Peace, love, dope" should be stencilled in big bright letters on the
hull of Voyager.
Tuco
--
FordaT
>but as long as Trek, particularly Voyager, is dominated by California
>liberals, then there's no chance of any Trek like JMS's vision
>appearing.
Thank God for small favors. I'd rather have Arron Spelling take over
"Trek"
before the Great "JMS".
BTW, when did "Dittoheads" start posting here?
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
eni...@news.dorsai.org
: In article <DADMs...@dorsai.org>, eni...@news.dorsai.org () writes:
: >
: > god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
: > the chance to,so forget it
: > Victor
: Thats where you are wrong!! Any script that does not make it in
: Berman's view of ST is going over to B5 with some trek writers and is making it
: big over there. Those shows are more fun to watch.
To each his own I guess. B5 is a nice show, but it's got every cliche in
the book!!
Victor
Tuco
: >Christ on a bike! Now that's a version of Star Trek I'd pay to see,
Probably as long as the great FordaT has been believing he (or it) is
God's gift to man, and woman, kind.
Tuco
--
Peronet Despeignes
: Victor
And DS9 doesnt? Virtually every sentence that comes out of a characters
mouth these days is a trite blurb. Admittably, Voyager is alot better in
the dialogue department.
Perry D.
Bard Lite
>And DS9 doesnt? Virtually every sentence that comes out of a characters
>mouth these days is a trite blurb. Admittably, Voyager is alot better in
>the dialogue department.
"Get that cheese to sickbay!"
Heh.
--
- /| <*> <*> <*> <*> <*> | michael may == mm...@mcd.intel.com
\`O.o' Just Say `NO' to Rugs | Disclaimer: HEY! That's MY disc!
={___}= - the American Hardwood | I speak only for myself and the
` U ' Floor Association | the large Wombat in the corner.
acc...@vaxa.hofstra.edu
> eni...@news.dorsai.org wrote:
> : acc...@vaxa.hofstra.edu wrote:
> : : In article <DADMs...@dorsai.org>, eni...@news.dorsai.org () writes:
> : : >
> : : > Oh no not more of this!! When did JMS become some sort of Sci-Fi TV
> : : > god anyway. Who cares what he would do with ST? He's never going to get
> : : > the chance to,so forget it
> : : >
> : : > Victor
>
> : : Thats where you are wrong!! Any script that does not make it in
> : : Berman's view of ST is going over to B5 with some trek writers and is making it
> : : big over there. Those shows are more fun to watch.
>
> : To each his own I guess. B5 is a nice show, but it's got every cliche in
> : the book!!
>
> : Victor
>
> mouth these days is a trite blurb. Admittably, Voyager is alot better in
> the dialogue department.
>
Even voyager is suffering from the same thing that TNG suffered from. A
lack of ideas. Each episode built on something that has already been done. I
feel like I am watching re-runs of ds9 tos and tng. Can't the writers at
paramount get it though their head. We want to see something unique.
The only thing unique that I see in voyager is one or two characters
after that its trek as usual.
-john
acc...@vaxa.hofstra.edu
> I guess this proves why B5 is way down in the
> ratings while "Star Trek" has been strong for
> decades.
> JMS should concentrate on his own show and maybe
> it won't be on the verge of cancellation EVERY year!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do Dolphins feel the same sensation when they jump into the air
> like we do when we jump into the water?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
B5 is on the verge of cancellation because of the time slot it is in.
Not because of what JMS does to the show. If st was bounced around like B5
is i am sure it would not receive an acceptable rating.
The storylines and aliens are much more interesting than trek can
produce.
-john