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

my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

»	Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » General Trek » Ron Moore Speaks!!!!! (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Ron Moore Speaks!!!!!

Individual 5748
Ex-Member

posted

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."

IP: Logged

Aethelwer
Frank G
Member # 36

posted

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).]

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

Individual 5748
Ex-Member

posted

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."

IP: Logged

Aethelwer
Frank G
Member # 36

posted

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..."

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

Individual 5748
Ex-Member

posted

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."

IP: Logged

Aethelwer
Frank G
Member # 36

posted

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..."

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

Elim Garak
Plain and simple
Member # 14

posted

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

Registered: Mar 1999 | IP: Logged

colin
Active Member
Member # 217

posted

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

Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Kosh
Perpetual Member
Member # 167

posted

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

Registered: Jun 1999 | IP: Logged

Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs
astronauts gotta get paid
Member # 239

posted

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

Registered: Oct 1999 | IP: Logged

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic