To add, much has been made about how Roddenberry hired giants of science fiction literature to write episodes of TOS versus the fact that Berman doesn't get Greg Bear to do freelance scripts on Andorians is somehow indicative of Trek's slide from "serious sci-fi" to "space drama." I'd submit that TOS's science fiction authors-cum-screenwriters (a) have in several cases probably had their talents overstated thanks to that biblical force known as Trekkie nostalgia; and (b) rarely, if ever, wrote the TOS episodes that actually could be most closely associated with serious science fiction, instead kicking out fun fare like "Shore Leave."
There's also the fact that there really wasn't a general pool of genre screenwriters back then like there is today. It seems like once you start doing genre these days, you pretty much stay there: With the exception of Beimler, every ex-DS9 writer's still doing genre (Echevarria has now jumped to Presidio Med, and Behr did dabble in Bob Patterson, but they both were on the staff of Dark Angel in recent years) Likewise, Fred Dekker, Chris Black and John Shiban came to Enterprise from where? Other genre. Science fiction is just as incestuous as it used to be, it's just now that the pool of writers has grown to the point that it's now split so that now the people who want to do screenplays do screenplays and those who want to do print do print.
[ July 18, 2002, 23:34: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TNG also had several more characters than most sci-fi shows. If you didn't like Riker, chances were good that there would be somebody else for you to like.
And Of Course: I've never heard of anybody that didn't like Picard or Data. Any of the other characters might be a mixed bag of reactions...but the Cap and the Android are pure show stealers.
Sometimes that's enough. Most popular shows really don't have much going for them other than charismatic acting.
Though some of the writing from season one is wretched, watching Picard spar Shakespeare quotes with Q is fucking great...
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
And Norman Spinrad! (The Doomsday Machine) And Richard Matheson, though I'd never claim him as a favorite of mine, or, you know, all that good and stuff. (The Enemy Within) And David Gerrold, sort of, depending upon how you count such things. Still, The Man Who Folded Himself, eh? Eh?! (The Trouble With Tribbles)
But, uh, anyway, not quite the heart and soul of the show, at any rate.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: ...much has been made about how Roddenberry hired giants of science fiction literature to write episodes of TOS... (b) rarely, if ever, wrote the TOS episodes that actually could be most closely associated with serious science fiction, instead kicking out silly fare like "Shore Leave."
Yeah, silly... Amok Time -- Theodore Sturgeon The Doomsday Machine -- Norman Spinrad The City on the Edge of Forever -- Harlan Ellison
Sure, Shore Leave was goofy, but heavily rewritten by Roddenberry. "City" was also rewritten by the staff, and is much goofier than Ellison's draft. And ok, maybe "The Man Trap" isn't "City" but it's hardly silly. I didn't see George Clayton Johnson writing "spock's Brain".
Catspaw, ok, granted, that's silly.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
The thesis, as it were, was that TOS was never really "hard" science fiction in any way that TNG wasn't. Their reasons for success were similar, as were their target audiences.
The presence of a few notable science fictioney scripts penned by noted science fiction authors (as opposed to many notable science fictioney scripts penned by TV guys like Coon, or many notable not-particularly-science-fictioney scripts penned by noted science fiction authors) is held up too often as evidence of TOS being targeted at a science fiction elite in ways latter trek hasn't been. Baloney. TOS was a populist show, just as all its spinoffs have been. And that populism, as Simon pointed out, arises from the fact that Trek "was a drama that happened to be set in outer space, not a drama about outer space"1.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In part two we will explore the first tenetive moves towards telling stories about the background information, the continued exploration of such themes in TNG, and their ultimate culmination in the Dominion War. Or not. I guess really I have no idea why Star Trek is popular. I think TNG's uniqueness at the time had something to do with it. The general lack of TV dramas that included the occasional firefight or descent into fisticuffs may have helped, though I don't really recall what dramas were big in the late 80's/early 90's.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Soap opera, I'd say, but the lines are hazy and indistinct. At any rate, we can certainly agree that Dallas and Star Trek have little in the way of ideological crossover.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Can we perhaps determine then why DS9 failed (comparitively). Some claim that the arc stuff turned away casual viewers, but the arc stuff didn't happen until season 3 (at least). Was it the moodier setting? Was it the increased competition? Did they just fail to capture the lightening for a third time?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Possibly because, when it started out, people still had TNG to watch, so they ignored DS9. Then, when TNG ended, they could have switched, but, half-a-season later, along comes VOY, which was closer in general premise to TNG then DS9 was.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
On SPACE, they have these little filler things after shows and such and one of them was a little interview with Michael Dorn about Worf on DS9, and he made the comment that DS9 wasn't really Star Trek because it was set on a station rather than a ship. Of course, H.G. Hertzler commented that DS9 was a return to the core ideals of Star Trek.
I might have screwed up those interviews, so Canadian posters who regularly watch SPACE can help me out here...
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm pretty sure that at the beginning of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, TPTB have stated that the show will return to "the core ideas/themes/haircuts of Trek".
I don't like to think though that the only thing that makes it "Star Trek" is that its set on a starship. Although Dorn was a bit spoilt, in that he actually had character building stuff on TNG. I wonder if McFadden would say the same?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Because, er, that's what it means.
I'm not convinced here either. Being "the first of its kind" does not automatically = viewers. People didn't watch TNG because it would lead to other genre shows, in the same way that people didn't watch The X-Files because it would lead to other moody conspiracy/monster type shows.
No, but it goes a long way to explain why TNG and The X-Files were such phenomenal successes compared to a lot of other 'equally as good' shows - that have come along in the later years.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
No one really knows what turned TNG viewers away from DS9. I do believe that TNG viewers did switch to Voyager, but alot got turned off after seeing a few episodes of it.
IMO DS9 was actually good. What makes the Arc Story not work is that you have to follow the background of the story of that particular episode. Otherwise you get lost, in trying to figure out why the Dominion wants to invade space.
Unless someone interviews a good portion of the old TNG viewers and take a poll why they didn't like DS9, we'll never know but take guesses.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
