Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Ron Moore Speaks!!!!!

This is topic Ron Moore Speaks!!!!! in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/280.html

Posted by Dan (Member # 129) on :

I would have thought it would have been around here already, but Fandom has an interview up from Ron Moore about his history at Star Trek and why he left Voyager. He also talks about the difference at working on DS9 and Voyager. You can read them at:

Part 1:

http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808

Part 2:

http://www1.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=60714

Part 2 describes my misgivings about Voyager quite well.

------------------
Daniel Henderson
Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor
http://www.myrkr.com

Contributing Writer
Beyond Babylon
http://www.b5mg.com/Beyond_Babylon

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

Yes, I bet he does speak. You know, I fully expected this sooner or later. I'm probably going to get chewed out for this, but I think this is ridiculous. Now don't get me wrong, I like Ron Moore's work. First Contact was excellent, and Survival Instinct and Barge of the Dead were great, as were many of his TNG and DS9 episodes. My comments on him are based on his work, but on Moore himself.

I find it rather interesting that he chose to wait until now to begin revealing all the little dirty details about Voyager.

My honest opinion is that he was asked to move over to Voyager and he thought, "hey, I've got it in with Brannon Braga and I'm gonna be the new top dog over there at Voyager. I've been in Trek for years, I'm co-executive producer at DS9, I'll step in an and become Voyager's savior."

My bet is that things didn't turn out quite as he expected and that he got mad when not everyone suddenly dropped everything they were planning and doing so he could run the show. He got mad, and left the show. Then, when no one from the show came running back to him pleading for him to return, he got even madder. So now he starts bashing it. I honestly believe that if he truely had those feelings, he would have said so seven months ago when he quit the show - not now, seven months later after all the press on him has died down and after Paramount hasn't given him much of a second thought.

Now, I'm sure that most of Moore's comments about VGR are true, at least to some degree. But I doubt VGR's creative staff is like working in hell, which he pretty much makes it out to be. And I bet there are some on VGR that do have big egos, but I bet theirs weren't the only one - and that's part of the problem.

Like I said, I have enjoyed Moore's work and I think he would have greatly helped Voyager. I also believe that at least some of his allegations are true. But I also think that this mudslinging is in bad taste.

*now ducks as Ron Moore fans unleash the Omega molecule on me*

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :

What a load of garbage. I have to agree, he has just been stewing in his own juices and has finally decided to fling a bunch of crap. Some of it may be true but he is just spouting nonsense.

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, it still feels good to have something to quote against VOY in my sig... ;-)

------------------
"Voyager is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spick-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? That kind of bullshitting the audience I think takes its toll."
-Ronald D. Moore

Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :

He's right that Voyager tends to talk the talk but not walk the walk as far as being "message" TV. That can change, and occasionally you do get some meaty drama out of it. ("Latent Image", "Counterpoint" were memorable)

As for the bridge being always clean and tidy - that's just a sign Janeway's a hygiene freak. Surely it's not too much of a stretch in imagination to have some crewman go round each night cleaning, hoovering and giving the panels a fresh lick of paint?

------------------
Gene: "I AM Star Trek"
Yvonne: "You can't sum yourself up in so small a package."
Gene: "SMALL?!!"

- Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Yes, that's standard protocol. I'll bet you could eat off that tactical console.

------------------
Somehow we're going somewhere.

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

Have any of you read parts three and four yet? It gets worse. I think I might be able to respect Moore's comments a little bit more if he was actually saying something.

The problem is, he isn't saying anything that anybody has already said about VGR hundreds of times before. The shuttle and energy problem, the pristine looking ship, the use of the holodecks, Seven of Nine's outfit. I find it interesting that Moore can bitch about Seven's outfit. He seems to have totally forgotten what Deanna Troi was wearing for a majority of TNG. In fact, that was a little bit more farfetched because Troi's outfit showed more skin. And on top of it, she was a Starfleet officer - graduated from the Academy! Seven is basically a civilian - she's on Janeway's staff because of her knowledge of the Borg and her expertise in the Astrometrics Lab.

I think Ron Moore should be careful about what he is saying, because he is coming off as hypocritical in some points.

He is also acting as if his observations on shuttle count, etc., are some enlightening vision that suudenly came to him that he has to share with the rest of the world. I hate to tell you, Ron, but people have long aware of VGR's rough spots a long time before you brought them up - and guess what, people still watch it anyway.

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :

Forgive me if I speak my opinion of all this, since I barely contribute compared to other contributors. If no one takes my comments seriously, no offense taken.

Looking at his interview and at the comments posted above, my intuition says that both parties here (Ron Moore as the first and the executive producers of VGR as the second) entered into Ron's coming on board with unrealistic expectations. I'm sure Mr. Moore came to VGR believing that he could make a genuine improvement to the show if more creative control over the show's theme and episodes was gradually given to him. The executive producers probably thought that using his writing skills would be a panacea to the show's ailing ratings without using him as so high a level producer. However, Mr. Moore's hypothesized presupposition that so much creative control would be relinquished by the two men who had exercised it from the start was wrong, and neither side got out of the arrangement what they expected at the start.

I hope that for all of them, they have learned from the experiences and one day may look beyond the conflicts that stained their friendships.

------------------
"Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."

"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

how do you get to parts 3 and 4?

Andrew

------------------
"...it might be easier to study
ancient societies from distant orbit than it might be to sit next to the
Guardian of Forever with a tricorder." - Baloo, January 2000

Posted by Dan (Member # 129) on :

You have to goto Section31.com for the rest. Here's the links:

http://www.section31.com/stories/011900_b.htm
http://www.section31.com/stories/012100_a.htm
http://www.section31.com/stories/012200_a.htm
http://www.section31.com/stories/012200_b.htm

Apparently, there's 7 parts to this interview (or so I've heard). I personally can't find any fault in his logic at all. I think he describes Voyager perfectly.

------------------
Daniel Henderson
Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor
http://www.myrkr.com

Contributing Writer
Beyond Babylon
http://www.b5mg.com/Beyond_Babylon

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I agree completely. Moore has coherently described most of the problems I ever had with Voyager.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

I agree with Mr. Moore.
My favorite series is the first, TOS, for the characters and the interactions. And the show was believable for me.I no longer watch Voyager. The show doesn't seem believable-the USS Voyager would be like the Millenium Falcon, weathered by galactic storms, battles, and accidents-and the characters would be in the process of having families and relationships.
One final point-Mr. Roddenberry felt that elements of the fifth and sixth movies were apocryphal. For me, I take this to mean that the TOS and the first four movies are his vision and are canonical. Anything that comes after the fourth movie is an interpretation of what could occur to the Star Trek universe. Every fan I feel must decide what he or she will accept of the current interpretation (5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the movies and TNG, DS9, and VOY). I accept all of the above except VOY-this series is so poor (characters, etc) and unbelievable.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Dan (Member # 129) on :

Actually, Roddenberry was pissed off about Star Treks II and III, also. I say it captured the spirit of Trek and he, well, didn't to say the least. I have a website I can give you that has info on the behind the scenes stuff on the movies.

------------------
Daniel Henderson
Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor
http://www.myrkr.com

Contributing Writer
Beyond Babylon
http://www.b5mg.com/Beyond_Babylon

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Ron Moore, really does address head on, what Voyager's problems are... Its not the actors - its the writers/producers... I could easily see Kate Mulgrew and Tim Russ chomping down into some fantastic meaty scripts but... maybe its not to be.

And Kate you can see is Very passionate about her job - as passionate as Ron Moore has shown to be about Star Trek in its entirety... you see Kate getting out there and really trying to boost her show - but what has she got to back her up. Sad really.

Hey, don't get me wrong - there are some FANTASTIC Voyager episodes... YOH being one of them - and maybe its coincidence, or not - but I feel that a lot of the points that Moore raised about his wishes for Voyager WERE done nicely in this episode, the ship, a sense of danger, of isolation. A Sense of wanting to get home. Year Of Hell, showed great character interactions and stories - nearly all of them - from the Doctor's moral dilemmas, to the beautiful developing relationship between Seven and Tuvok (which sadly has be left by the wayside...) The crew shows a comradery and togetherness held by Janeway in many roles - as Captain, as mentor... as Mother. BUT! To little too late...

Ron hits the mark on lots of points. A lot of them were what us Trekkers have been complaining about for a LONG time.

I hope the actors read Moores comments - I'm sure the artists in ALL of them would whole-heartedly agree.

------------------
"...it might be easier to study
ancient societies from distant orbit than it might be to sit next to the
Guardian of Forever with a tricorder." - Baloo, January 2000

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The problem is, none of this is new. None of it is really exclusive to Voyager, either...

------------------
"20th Century, go to sleep."
--
R.E.M.

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Leave it to Sol to sum up all my thoughts in one line.

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

Indeed! I totally agree with Sol.

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

It might not be new, but this interview sums up everything quite well.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

It's nice that everyone can say "This is bad," but can you come up with a way to "fix" it? If not, just complain about it once and pass it by. I mean, if you can't "fix" the Maquis/Starfleet thing now, if you had to, then there's no reason for you to still use that as an excuse as for why Voyager -- as is now -- isn't a good show, IMO.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

It's not an excuse, it's a reason. It would have been nice if the Maquis retained their previous uniforms and always contested the decisions made by Janeway etc. It would have made for a more interesting show.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Fine, it's a reason to begin with, but after five years and no one knowing what to do to "fix" it, it borders very close to being an excuse, IMO.

There is a point at which you need to accept some things as they are...

[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited January 24, 2000).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

No, there's a point at which some of us turn off the TV.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Yes, like you did to "Drone" because of the implausibility; and then you missed a highly praised episode.

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

But you apparently don't do that. Why not follow your own advice before you give it?

Edit: Well, apparently you do turn it off. I missed Garak's post. My mistake. But if you don't like, maybe you should turn it off a little more often. For instance, you obviously didn't like "Fair Haven," but I got the impression you watched the whole thing. I'm curious about that.

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

[This message has been edited by Individual 5748 (edited January 24, 2000).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I stopped watching "Fair Haven" after the first twelve minutes.

As for episodes like "Drone," if the premise is implausable, it ruins my ability to take the episode seriously.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

It's a drama, not a science documentary.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, so is "ER," but the doctors on that show have never encountered anyone with a brain made out of clay, or something.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell

Posted by Dan (Member # 129) on :

But sometimes, drama must give into believabilty. Even with it being science fiction, there has to be some sort of realism involved or the story crashes (like Voyager usually does).

As for fixes for Voyager, if you give me about a week, I can list some changes that maybe able to fix it. I say a week because my computer is going in for an upgrade either tomorrow or Wednesday and my friend dubbed off the 1st Season of Earth: Final Conflict (the only good Roddenberry series on TV) for me so I'm going to be engrossed in that.

------------------
Daniel Henderson
Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor
http://www.myrkr.com

Contributing Writer
Beyond Babylon
http://www.b5mg.com/Beyond_Babylon

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

But even from the very first shots of the first TOS episode, science was at least partially thrown out the window. In real life, there is no way to hear a starship in space. In real life, we would not see a phaser blast. There will never be a transporter because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, Star Trek, and practically all other science fiction, continues to break these basic laws of nature or physics or whatever simply because it adds to the drama present on the screen. So if they're going to break even the most fundamental laws of science to add to drama, why should we hope that they wouldn't do the same for the more complex laws?

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The audience can tolerate only a certain amount of anti-science, though. Besides, hearing ships in space isn't a major plot point.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..."
Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!"
John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

Your splitting hairs. If they are going to bend (or break, whichever you prefer) the laws of science for dramatic effect, they aren't going to dissect every single story to make sure that everything is scientifically accurate. And as viewers, we should be prepared for that. If you don't like scientific inaccuracy, turn off Voyager and make your way to 2001 - it's so scientifically accurate its digusting.

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

There's a difference between not dissecting plots for scientific accuracy and coming up with stuff like tachyon cores that clearly indicates the show has no intention of being anything more than an unrealistic hodgepodge of silly fantasy stories.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..."
Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!"
John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited January 25, 2000).]

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

But has it ever claimed to be a scientifically accurate show? If it has, I'll gladly eat crow it you can give a direct quote. However, I believe that you're putting the show up to certain standards that the writers don't even put up for it. And what's wrong with unrealistic stories, anyways?

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

See my statement above about ER for why realism is important. Besides, this is Star Trek, which, a long time ago, was a science-fiction show.

If there's no realism, there's no way to put the story into perspective, and thus it becomes flat and pointless.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..."
Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!"
John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."

Posted by Individual 5748 on :

But can't the show just be entertaining? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, though, isn't it? How bout we leave that I like the show, and you aren't partial to it. Deal?

------------------
"Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Sure, but I think the show could be a lot more appealing in general than it is now.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..."
Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!"
John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Well, any show can be improved, probably...

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

I like Star Wars and the original Star Trek series because the science of these fictional universes is part of the background detail that gives believablity to the whole. The problem with the current incarnations of Star Trek is that this science is constantly being highlighted and made a major plot point or used as a deus ex machina and is therefore crowding out the more important elements of a believable fantasy-the characters and their relationships, a good story, and some form of connection to the viewer. I don't expect the science to be truthful; however, I expect the characters to be truthful to what we know in our reality-a level of consistency in emotions and behavrior. My mother has often remarked how she can see the growth in maturity of Capt Kirk from the first episode to the last. Even as he grew, the consistent elements of his personality are that he cared about the members of his crew and was responsible for his crew. Mr Shatner made Capt Kirk into a believable person-someone that I could actually meet.
Another point I would like to meet-the premise for Voyager was too ambitious. Only way the series could have worked is if there was a season by season plan as with Babylon Five. And I am worried that the next series may be equally or more ambitious. With the number of commercials rising each year, a hour long drama may someday be thirty-thirty (thirty minutes of commercials, thirty minutes of drama). This balance could short shift the drama in the exploration of character or humanistic themes. I say, keep the next series simple and stupid or place the series on a cable channel where commercials are few or missing completely.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

I could not agree with Ron Moore more. I like Voyager, and watched it till we lost it here in Charleston, but it could have been the strongest trek ever, instead of the weakest.

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

It dropped the ball. Simple as that. It was given the ball, and fumbled. Now, they're making some gains, but it's still like 3rd and 54.

------------------
I bet when Neanderthal kids would make a snowman, someone would
always end up saying "Don't forget the big heavy eyebrows." Then they would all get embarrassed because they remembered they had the big hunky eyebrows too, and then they would get mad and eat the snowman.

-Jack Handey