# Straczynski on Trek



## Chun-tzu (Feb 16, 2005)

JM Straczynski has made it known that he's very interested in doing Trek right (my words).  In case you missed the link on the news page, here it is again:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30385

I'm 100% with JMS on his statement that Trek lately has been too cautious with its stories, and I like what he says in the article.  JMS' work on the Spider-Man and Supreme Power comics proves to me that he knows how to add to an existing mythology, making sense of parts that don't, and changing the character in ways that make sense for the character.  Also of great importance, he talks about drawing upon some of the best and brightest sci-fi writers, whereas the previous administration kept things in-house, to the detriment of the series.

I think a reboot for Trek is definitely the way to go.  I'd like to see technology in Star Trek dealt with in one of two ways: either make it more realistic (i.e., true science fiction), or completely forget the explanations and downplay the techno-talk (i.e., make it more like fantasy).  Frankly, Star Trek's tech and scientific explanations are typically about as realistic as  Spider-Man getting powers from a radioactive arachnid.  Either update the tech for modern times, or throw the tech talk out the window and just go with it.

Besides the whole tech side of things, there are aspects of Starfleet culture that just really don't work for me.  A culture without any form of currency is just bizarre.  I can completely understand a de-emphasis on materialism, but there still has to be currency of SOME form, especially if other cultures (like the Ferengi) use them.  And in early TNG, they said headaches were practically nonexistent.  Again, this is just bizarrely unrealistic.  They don't have any stress in the future?  They face invasions, they have family squabbles, they compete for important positions... there is just no way in the world they've "cured" headaches.  I get that Roddenberry had created a certain vision of the future, but I bring it back to the super-hero analogy:  today's audience is more sophisticated than the 60's TV audience, and things that seemed perfectly plausible then are not so plausible now.  That doesn't mean Roddenberry's vision has to be thrown out here, just that it would be done better if painted in a more realistic light.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 16, 2005)

He'd probably do it a load of good. Look what his show did to DS9's storytelling. They went from individual stories to story-arcs to try to compete with B5. I'd like to see his take on Classic-Era Trek.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 16, 2005)

I'd watch it in a heartbeat...


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 16, 2005)

Only if he hires Manny Coto & the Reeves-Stevens duo and fires Rick Berman & Brannon Braga.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 16, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> JM Straczynski has made it known that he's very interested in doing Trek right (my words). .... That doesn't mean Roddenberry's vision has to be thrown out here, just that it would be done better if painted in a more realistic light.




I think JMS would do Trek a world of good. I don't trust Paramount to give him the freedom of control that he would need, though I'm not certain if they are still micromanaging idiots or not. 

I think that Roddenberry's vision would need to be retained, though, to really have that Trek feel. His vision, like a lot of classicist SF, was one where we'd grown up and out of the silly petty ideas and squabbles of the 20th century. I;d like to see that vision stick around and influence another generation of fans.


----------



## Wombat (Feb 16, 2005)

Hmmm, intriguing thoughts at least.

While I would welcome him to give a stab at this, especially given how much I disliked Trek post-DS-9, I still think the franchise needs a little "downtime", to recover if nothing else.  Give it a year or two off, then if he wishes to give it a try, go for the gold!

Oh, and yes, I think the technobabble should be kept to a minimum.  I felt that was one of the curses of TNG -- too much trying to explain with unobtanium and verrukten rays...


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 16, 2005)

While I'm sure JMS would do a good job at it, I'd rather see him persue something else.  Jeremiah was great until he left.  Crusade showed a lot of promise.  All his comics have been well written, even if I don't particularly like them all.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 16, 2005)

Wayne Ligon sums it up. How long have they stuck with Berman now? No matter how badly he screwed up the show.

The Auld Grump, it might be time to shake the Trek Etch-a-Sketch.


----------



## Aulayan (Feb 16, 2005)

It's over.  Paramount has said they're taking a couple years off of Trek TV.  And JMS Just got a new TV show offer, and since no trek thing can happen in at least a couple of years, he said yes.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 16, 2005)

The idea of a reboot does not fascinate me. Too soon for reboot. You wait decades 
for a reboot, not a couple of years. I'd like to see what JMS would do with the Trek
Universe as is.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 16, 2005)

JMS as long as he has full control and backing.  I think there are a number of people that could do wonders with ST but you got to get rid of Berman and Braga, which I do not think are fans of the myth that is Star Trek but more of the franchise of Star Trek.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 16, 2005)

With all I'd want to change if I were to reboot Trek (and accepted because they're part of Trek Lore), I'd be inclined to change things a little bit more and call it something else.


----------



## KaintheSeeker (Feb 16, 2005)

I could see him doing a lot of things. Me, I think some point in between the original and Enterprise would be a good point. Also sometime after the return of Voyager woudl be a good point. (I could see a lot of fun to be had with Section 31 too. but I like a little espionage in my fun too)


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 16, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> Besides the whole tech side of things, there are aspects of Starfleet culture that just really don't work for me.  A culture without any form of currency is just bizarre.  I can completely understand a de-emphasis on materialism, but there still has to be currency of SOME form, especially if other cultures (like the Ferengi) use them.




The money bit was one of my favorite bits of new trek, "hamhanded beating you over the skull with a philosphical point of view" instances. It simply makes absolutely no sense unless everyone is living in some sort of communal society, which Trek clearly is not. Not to mention that it is quite clear from a large number of other episodes that money is quite clearly used in the federation 

It ranks right up there with the bit in the episode where the romulans return, where the thawed 22nd century billionare is impatiently pounding on the com device to get Picard's attention and Picard chews him out saying something to the effect of "Every person on this ship is a responsible person even the children, and they all know better than to abuse the com system" The next episode a kid gets upset, steals a shuttle and nearly gets himself killed. Everyone is a responsible person, riiiiigghhhtt!

The major problem I've had with all of the new Trek shows has been their willingness to toss logic and common sense out the window everytime they had some moral point they wanted to club you over the skull with. At least with Straczynski I know that wouldn't be the case.

Though I can't imagine the paramount people being willing to give him the freedom from interference he demands.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 16, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> A culture without any form of currency is just bizarre.  I can completely understand a de-emphasis on materialism, but there still has to be currency of SOME form, especially if other cultures (like the Ferengi) use them.  And in early TNG, they said headaches were practically nonexistent.  Again, this is just bizarrely unrealistic.  They don't have any stress in the future?  They face invasions, they have family squabbles, they compete for important positions... there is just no way in the world they've "cured" headaches.



Based on everything Star Trek has thrown at us so far, I find your arguments... uncompelling.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The major problem I've had with all of the new Trek shows has been their willingness to toss logic and common sense out the window everytime they had some moral point they wanted to club you over the skull with.



Welcome to Science Fiction. Please enjoy your stay.

(And you only experienced that problem with the _new_ Treks? Not only did the TOS hammer you over the head, for added emphasis they often had a shirtless Kirk literally hammer the opposing point of view into a bloody pulp...)



> At least with Straczynski I know that wouldn't be the case.



True. JMS would hammer you over the head with his frequently inept attempts at everyday dialogue and humor...

That said... I think pairing JMS and Trek would be wonderful.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> Besides the whole tech side of things, there are aspects of Starfleet culture that just really don't work for me.  A culture without any form of currency is just bizarre.



It is bizarre... but Roddenberry's Trek was never SF in the extrapalotory vein. It was primarily a highly romanticized, humanist, capital-L liberal fairytale about humanity's future.

I always thought that was part of its charm. 

Then again, I started watching TOS when I four. That probably colors my view...


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 16, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> The idea of a reboot does not fascinate me. Too soon for reboot. You wait decades for a reboot, not a couple of years. I'd like to see what JMS would do with the Trek Universe as is.




Years, not decades.

And besides, it's *been* decades.  Trek came out in, what was it, 1967?  Sure, there was an absense of it in the 1970s, but with movies in the 80's and there has been over 15 years of constant Trek.

The more backstory there is, the harder it is to do new storylines.

If they don't do a reboot, I'd want this to be another generation or 100 years forward.  One thing I dislike about Trek is that it hasn't taken into account the various changes we've speculated.  Trek virtually ignored other speculated innovations.  Compare GURPS Transhuman Space to Trek.  I think Trek should start reflecting some of these innovations we expect to come in the future.


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 16, 2005)

I'd just like to see a movie where the damn shields stay up for once.


----------



## fett527 (Feb 16, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> ...And in early TNG, they said headaches were practically nonexistent.  Again, this is just bizarrely unrealistic.  They don't have any stress in the future?  They face invasions, they have family squabbles, they compete for important positions... there is just no way in the world they've "cured" headaches...




This has bothered me and stuck with me since I first saw this episode.  I had to be in high school when I saw it but it has always bothered me.  Picard simply waves away the fact that he has a headache and deals with it (ended up being a Fernegi mind control device), as we would do today.  Then Crusher says well since we have eliminated headaches this is unusual.  WHY DIDN'T PICARD THINK IT WAS UNUSUAL?  The way Crusher acted this should have caused all kinds of alarms for Picard yet he dealt with it as a normal occurence.  Needed to get that out as this has bugged me for over a decade!


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 16, 2005)

I'd love to see JMS give trek a go.

Any new show, though, needs to take place after the events in "Nemesis."

No more of this prequel business.

Let's go forward.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 16, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd love to see JMS give trek a go.
> 
> Any new show, though, needs to take place after the events in "Nemesis."
> 
> ...




Let's boldly go.. where no one has gone before.





...Sorry, I had to say it.


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 16, 2005)

fett527 said:
			
		

> This has bothered me and stuck with me since I first saw this episode.  I had to be in high school when I saw it but it has always bothered me.  Picard simply waves away the fact that he has a headache and deals with it (ended up being a Fernegi mind control device), as we would do today.  Then Crusher says well since we have eliminated headaches this is unusual.  WHY DIDN'T PICARD THINK IT WAS UNUSUAL?  The way Crusher acted this should have caused all kinds of alarms for Picard yet he dealt with it as a normal occurence.  Needed to get that out as this has bugged me for over a decade!




Well obviously, he was being mind controlled not to notice that it wasn't a normal occurance.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> (And you only experienced that problem with the new Treks? Not only did the TOS hammer you over the head, for added emphasis they often had a shirtless Kirk literally hammer the opposing point of view into a bloody pulp...)




TOS had its stupid episodes, it had its bad episodes, but I never felt that my intelligence was being insulted in the way that TNG+ has. Let's take as an example the most blatant example of preaching in TOS, the Black/White Episode. It was blatant preaching, it was as subtle as a Mac Truck, but it made the point in a simple and elegent way that made perfect sense. Our treatment of people with different skin colors and features, differentiates on nothing more more significant than what was being shown in that episode. 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> True. JMS would hammer you over the head with his frequently inept attempts at everyday dialogue and humor...




I do not believe that JMS is infalible or perfect. B5 and his other productions have had their share of bad scripts, stupid ideas and plot holes. But again I never felt that my intelligence was being insulted by the way that they were trying to make their point.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 16, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> JMS as long as he has full control and backing.  I think there are a number of people that could do wonders with ST but you got to get rid of Berman and Braga, which I do not think are fans of the myth that is Star Trek but more of the franchise of Star Trek.



"Full control"? No way. After seeing what Berman and Braga did, it only reaffirms that absolutely power corrupts absolutely.

JMS must learn to collaborate with his writing staff, not dictate them with an iron fist. Ron D. Moore left briefly after he was hired on the _VOY_ writing staff due to an uncomfortable workplace environment under Braga's leadership. He sent his grievance to Berman but Rick sided with Braga, so Ron left.

Come to think of it, what does he mean by "reboot"? He's not going to ignore _TOS_ and produce his own version of _TOS._ This is not _Battlestar Galactica._


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2005)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> The more backstory there is, the harder it is to do new storylines.
> 
> If they don't do a reboot, I'd want this to be another generation or 100 years forward.




When you've got the whole galaxy to play with, you don't need to completely reboot, or move to the distant future, to do new storylines.

Take, for example, Peter David's "New Frontier" books.  They are what you get when you allow a competent (if not stellar) writer to work in a new part of space.  Posit a region on the border of Federation space that has not been interesting or important until now, and give it a good reason to become important.  

All of a sudden, you've got new planets, new races, new storylines, while still having access to older elements if you want them.  For David it generated some of the better Trek fiction in print.  For DS9 it yilded some of teh best Trek TV around.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 17, 2005)

Exactly. Just look at long running comic titles.

There's been written many, many more issues of Spider-Man than there have been 
episodes of Trek. It's had it's bad years (a whole decade in the 90s) but all it needed
was some good writers and to get the editors to loosen their grip a little and now 
we're getting great stuff from guys like Millar and JMS himself.


ENT had the right idea. Not in doing a prequal, but in trying to distance itself from the
other series. Making it it's own thing. They failed horribly at it, of course, but the
concept was gold. But I don't mean that as only in setting, but in tone and execution
as well. This is why DS9 worked but VOY didn't. DS9 became it's own entity seperate
from TNG, just like TNG had released themselves from TOS's bounds earlier.

Toys don't go stale, but the one who plays with them.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 17, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Based on everything Star Trek has thrown at us so far, I find your arguments... uncompelling.




Based on the single sentence of your reply, I find it difficult to respond other than to ask for some elaboration.  Your reply doesn't give me any idea of what you disagree with, what you want from Trek, or where I should elaborate.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 17, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> There's been written many, many more issues of Spider-Man than there have been
> episodes of Trek. It's had it's bad years (a whole decade in the 90s) but all it needed
> was some good writers and to get the editors to loosen their grip a little and now
> we're getting great stuff from guys like Millar and JMS himself.




I hear what you and Umbran are saying.  A complete reboot isn't necessary.  And I'd agree with that, as well.

However, I think in many cases a reboot does more good than staying with the current continuity.  Both Superman and Batman have effectively been rebooted many times, not just in the comics, but in the movies, TV shows, animation, and so on.  Reboots allow for different elements to come through, that often add a significant element to the overall mythology.  For example, keeping Ma and Pa Kent alive, instead of killing them off when Clark reached adulthood, was a good thing, and added a significant element to his supporting cast.  Reboots also reach out to a wider audience.  Given the poor performance of the Star Trek movies, I'd argue Trek is in need of new fans, as well as keeping the old ones.

I think time passed isn't the most significant factor in deciding on whether or not to reboot a franchise.  It's a question of vision.  What is the creator's vision of the series?  Sometimes, creating a new continuity can do a lot for bringing that vision to life.  I really like Mark Waid's new vision of the Legion of Super-Heroes, for example, which is something that necessitated a reboot.  Personally, I'd trust in JMS' vision, and that he would still be able to draw upon elements of Star Trek history to satisfy the fans, rather than just throwing everything out and starting from scratch.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 17, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> It is bizarre... but Roddenberry's Trek was never SF in the extrapalotory vein. It was primarily a highly romanticized, humanist, capital-L liberal fairytale about humanity's future.
> 
> I always thought that was part of its charm.
> 
> Then again, I started watching TOS when I four. That probably colors my view...




But that's no longer what Star Trek is.  If a new series were to go in that direction, then great.  But Star Trek heroes are no longer James T. Kirks.  And in chosing to make social commentary with so many episodes, the shows have become a completely different animal.  Just like the technology, I say pick a direction and go with it.  Ignore the unrealistic aspects and just do a fantasy show in space, or else make it more realistic.  Star Trek is in need of change, that much is clear.  They've gone to the same well too many times.  I think either direction could work great.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 17, 2005)

I remember reading something that according to Roddenbery he envisioned the humans of the 24th century wouldn't have personal conflicts...

Which sounds like the most unrealistic idea ever thought up.  And it makes for boring TV.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 17, 2005)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I remember reading something that according to Roddenbery he envisioned the humans of the 24th century wouldn't have personal conflicts...
> 
> Which sounds like the most unrealistic idea ever thought up.  And it makes for boring TV.



It's not supposed to be realistic.  It's supposed to be an idealised Utopia.  Mankind, evolved beyond the pettiness and selfishness that drives it today.  I've always liked it.  Cynical as I am about the Mankind of today, I like to imagine that Roddenberry's Federation is a possible future.

That said, I am a professed fan of TNG and DS9, and never found either of them boring television.  The fact that he envisioned no inter-human conflicts does not mean Star Trek has no conflicts, as I think many Trek series have proven.

You know what I do consider "boring television"?  Reality TV.  It's the most realistic programming on the tube, and complete and utter garbage.


----------



## Starman (Feb 17, 2005)

Well, it's a moot point, now.

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17287

Starman


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 17, 2005)

I guess we'll see in a couple years from now...


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 17, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> Based on the single sentence of your reply, I find it difficult to respond other than to ask for some elaboration.



Oh, heavens, I wasn't expecting a response. It was just an observation of mine.


> Your reply doesn't give me any idea of what you disagree with, what you want from Trek, or where I should elaborate.



I suppose I might as well elaborate. For me, any concept of "realism" has long since been blown right out the window. When Trek has thousands of races, all of them simply humans with funny heads, they all speak freaking English (no 'universal translators' needed), and everyone is doing weird things with 'tachyons', well, any talk of realism/versimilitude/believability simply becomes meaningless. There just isn't any. (Thus, pointing out specific instances causes my eyes to glaze over as I point out every other thing in the whole series.)

So, I agree with your complaints about realism. However, considering virtually _every other single thing_ is unrealistic, I disagree it's a problem. Trek is what it is. (And realistic, it ain't.)


----------



## Tkolhoff (Feb 17, 2005)

*Series refocus*

I think it would be interesting if someone put togehter a show that was based on a different race in the ST universe. Klingons or something.... then they could revisit some old story ideas where the other races had parts to play but we would see it from a different viewpoint.

TK


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 17, 2005)

Starman said:
			
		

> Well, it's a moot point, now.
> 
> http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17287




Man, I had all these cunning arguments lined up to both highlight my brilliance and demonstrate that I am a true sci-fi TV genius.  Now there's no point I guess.

Drat.


----------



## Villano (Feb 17, 2005)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I remember reading something that according to Roddenbery he envisioned the humans of the 24th century wouldn't have personal conflicts...
> 
> Which sounds like the most unrealistic idea ever thought up.  And it makes for boring TV.




Yeah, I remember someone on DS9 talking about this.  That's why they had so many alien characters.  Humans don't disagree.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 17, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> TOS had its stupid episodes, it had its bad episodes, but I never felt that my intelligence was being insulted in the way that TNG+ has.



I'm guessing this is going to be a pretty big list, but what episodes of TNG really standout insulting-your-IQ wise?

In retrospect, I think TNG has amiable characters, a few steller episodes (like "Darmok" and "The Offsrping"), and a lot of really really dull ones. At the time I enjoyed them, but I find I can't watch them over.



> Let's take as an example the most blatant example of preaching in TOS, the Black/White Episode.



"Let This Be Your Last Battlefield"... Sometimes I think televised SF should strive to be no more sophisticated than this... My take on it is that was both insulting and powerful/elegant, like most good allegories. Its quintessential Trek.  


> But again I never felt that my intelligence was being insulted by the way that they were trying to make their point.



I never felt insulted by JMS... just angry at him for not getting help from other writers who could write the material he wasn't good at.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 17, 2005)

Before I started reading JMS's Amazing Spider-Man I thought he could do no wrong.  Now I know better.   How could the guy who created my favorite Sci-Fi show do such a horrid job on Spider-Man?   I like the "history" of Star Trek and I get the feeling that JMS would want to retcon it so it is more like he thinks it should have been.   I think he'd be better off doing his own thing rather than trying to remake Star Trek.


----------



## myrdden (Feb 17, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> When you've got the whole galaxy to play with, you don't need to completely reboot, or move to the distant future, to do new storylines.
> 
> Take, for example, Peter David's "New Frontier" books.  They are what you get when you allow a competent (if not stellar) writer to work in a new part of space.  Posit a region on the border of Federation space that has not been interesting or important until now, and give it a good reason to become important.
> 
> All of a sudden, you've got new planets, new races, new storylines, while still having access to older elements if you want them.  For David it generated some of the better Trek fiction in print.  For DS9 it yilded some of teh best Trek TV around.




Well put Umbran.  This is what I am hoping happens in the future.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 18, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I'd just like to see a movie where the damn shields stay up for once.




Not to mention the damn transporter! Why come up with a nifty transportation device that "conveniently" breaks down?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 18, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Chun-tzu
> A culture without any form of currency is just bizarre. I can completely understand a de-emphasis on materialism, but there still has to be currency of SOME form, especially if other cultures (like the Ferengi) use them. And in early TNG, they said headaches were practically nonexistent. Again, this is just bizarrely unrealistic. They don't have any stress in the future? They face invasions, they have family squabbles, they compete for important positions... there is just no way in the world they've "cured" headaches.




Funny. They can cure headaches but not pattern baldness? I'd say that'd be a bigger issue, for men anyway, than "mere" headaches that a simple drug can take care of..... the money bit is a bit farfetched. Especially when the later mention "credits" and "bars of latinum".


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 18, 2005)

Who says they didn't cure pattern baldness?  Picard shaves his head for the ladies.  He was romantically linked to Beverly Crusher, Vash, Neela Darren... he did WAY better than Riker.  Only Wesley (!!) trumped him, with Ashley Judd.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 18, 2005)

It doesn't matter now, but I don't care who they get to do a Trek series next.

As long as they can make it still feel like Trek while showing me a good time.  This season of Enterprise has been the best one yet for many reasons that we are all aware of by now.  This is what it should have been from the start:  Us seeing the true start of the Federation.  I like time-travel stuff but this one should have been a no-brainer.  Give us the classic races and go nuts with it.  The 3-ep arcs are fantastic.  Arc-type writing is my favorite kind on TV.  TOS was never like that but then again it was never my favorite of the series (even though it was actually the best).

I've read a bunch of JMS comic book material and it was pretty good.  Didn't blow me out of the water but it was quality stuff.  One of these days I'll get around to watching that S1 B5 DVD set sitting on my shelf...

There is so much talent out there right now in television.  So many good writers who consistantly knock stories out of the park but are currently not getting much work.  There is no reason why Paramount couldn't go back to the days of accepting scripts from people not currently employed by the studio.

At this point, with Enterprise dead I want Trek to take a break for a few years.  Let the fans build up a strong desire for more.  Sell the show to a real network or just put it back on weekends like it was with TNG & DS9.  Hell, give it to *gasp* *wheeze* SFC.  I never thought I'd say that.  It's time to stop typing....


----------



## Jhamin (Feb 18, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I've read a bunch of JMS comic book material and it was pretty good.  Didn't blow me out of the water but it was quality stuff.  One of these days I'll get around to watching that S1 B5 DVD set sitting on my shelf...




And if you want to watch that S1 B5 DVD, you have to commit to watching *all* of it.  If you base your judgement off of the first 5 eps you will wonder what all the B5 fans have been smoking.
Heck, the series only gets really good in season 2.  But you have to watch season one for it to make sense.

The biggest problem JMS has is how long it takes for so much of his stuff to get started.  It's $%*#$ amazing once it gets going, but is often dull or painful until then.
That will kill him if ever gets a crack at Trek.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 18, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Before I started reading JMS's Amazing Spider-Man I thought he could do no wrong.  Now I know better.   How could the guy who created my favorite Sci-Fi show do such a horrid job on Spider-Man?



How much did you read?

His Spider-Man work is the same as his B5 work in the regard he takes his time getting 
anywhere. He just finished his first long running story 'season', which was great and has
started another, which hasn't been good so far, but I hope it'll pick up.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 18, 2005)

Re: baldness

I think I remember hearing something along the lines of "people in this advanced civilization would be above caring about something so trivial"

Eh.  

And I agree with everyone above who said stuff along the lines of "JMS needs a dialogue editor"


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 18, 2005)

Meh. 

After DS9 rolled around, I just story-edited in my head that while us Earthlings 
were beyond such trivials as a society, didn't mean we were completely as 
individuals.

Works much better.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 18, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> How much did you read?
> 
> His Spider-Man work is the same as his B5 work in the regard he takes his time getting
> anywhere. He just finished his first long running story 'season', which was great and has
> started another, which hasn't been good so far, but I hope it'll pick up.




I read about fifteen issues.  Very drawn out and very boring.  The spider-totem/spider-god crap was horrid.  Then after I thought it had bottomed out we get Sins Past.  Six issues of fluff that should have been done in two.  Then he does his reton which doesn't fit into what was detailed back then, among other faults.   He's not alone though, nobody is doing a good Spider-man.  You have MJ finding Peter making out with Gwens 8-10 year old daughter in Spectacular, and whatever Millar is doing in Marvel Knights.  I read two issues of MK and dropped it, I don't like Millar very much.   Back to JMS, he is doing ok on Supreme Power, except its mindnumbing slowness and some iffy issues, like the latest one.  Overall its a solid comic though, and I despise decompression for the most part.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Re: baldness
> 
> I think I remember hearing something along the lines of "people in this advanced civilization would be above caring about something so trivial"




Whether or not the advanced civilization is above caring, perhaps _Picard_ is above caring.  Perhaps a "cure" exists, but picard didn't take it because he personally doesn't feel it is a malady.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 18, 2005)

Male baldness is not a disease nor a stigma. It is no different than female menopause.



While I agree that the franchise should follow _Star Wars_ and take a hiatus until there is a demand, I just started to get into _Enterprise._ Now I wish they didn't start Season 4 with these good episodes (mainly with the Andorians). It would make the separation easier to bear.


----------



## Richards (Feb 19, 2005)

Originally Posted by BiggusGeekus


> Re: baldness
> 
> I think I remember hearing something along the lines of "people in this advanced civilization would be above caring about something so trivial"



Originally Posted by Umbran: 


> Whether or not the advanced civilization is above caring, perhaps Picard is above caring. Perhaps a "cure" exists, but picard didn't take it because he personally doesn't feel it is a malady.



Actually, I remember the episode ("Rascals," I think) where Picard (along with Guinan, Keiko, and...somebody else?) were in a transporter malfunction and were reduced in age to children.  At the end of the episode, when they managed to reverse the process and restore them to their original ages, the first thing Picard did when he stepped off the transporter platform was put his hand to the top of his head, feel that he was back to being bald, and let out a sigh of disappointment.

Johnathan


----------



## Villano (Feb 19, 2005)

Richards said:
			
		

> Actually, I remember the episode ("Rascals," I think) where Picard (along with Guinan, Keiko, and...somebody else?)




Ro Larin (sp?).  She was the Bajorian.  She was only on a couple of episodes.  Still, she was one of the more interesting character on Trek.

Now, as to why Picard is bald...it's to attract hot Klingon women.  

Remember the episode with Lursa and B'Tor when one of them growls seductively and runs her fingers over his head?  It's a proven fact that Klingon women love bald men.


----------



## Richards (Feb 19, 2005)

Ah yes, Ensign Ro.  That's right.  Thanks!

Johnathan


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 19, 2005)

Jhamin said:
			
		

> And if you want to watch that S1 B5 DVD, you have to commit to watching *all* of it. If you base your judgement off of the first 5 eps you will wonder what all the B5 fans have been smoking.
> Heck, the series only gets really good in season 2.  But you have to watch season one for it to make sense.



Oh, I know.

I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't intend to watch the whole thing.  I've heard that seasons 3/4 are the best so my goal is to get that far at the very least.  The trick is to find the time to burn through them all.  I tend to watch DVD TV sets in big 5 hour chunks.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Ro Larin (sp?).  She was the Bajorian.  She was only on a couple of episodes.  Still, she was one of the more interesting character on Trek.



Would have been more interesting if the actress Michelle Forbe had signed up as part of the _DS9_ cast. And it's Ro Laren. But Nana Visitor ("Colonel Kira Nerys") is good and sexy too.




			
				Villano said:
			
		

> It's a proven fact that Klingon women love bald men.



Hell, even I knew that!


----------



## S'mon (Feb 19, 2005)

In (1d4+1) years I'd like to see a new Trek series that aims to deal with moral issues in the best tradition of 'soft' sf, like TOS at its finest rather than the 'easy certainties' of TNG.  Something like the new Battlestar Galactica, only less relentlessly grim.  So the feel could be a lot like B5, but exploration-based, as Trek should be (IMO), interstellar  politics as backdrop rather than central focus.  Issues like "when is it ok to invade nasty planets and take their stuff (for the greater good)?"  "What is the right balance between law and freedom?"  "What ideals aren't worth the cost?"  "Should female crew wear miniskirts?"  

OK, maybe not that one.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2005)

Sounds like you want JMS to recycle the unaired scripts of _Babylon 5: Crusade._


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Not to mention the damn transporter! Why come up with a nifty transportation device that "conveniently" breaks down?




Or the Holodecks that have safety features which are easily disabled and break down frequently.  usually when the writers need to write another show.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 20, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> Or the Holodecks that have safety features which are easily disabled and break down frequently.  usually when the writers need to write another show.




Or the creation of a sentient character.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sounds like you want JMS to recycle the unaired scripts of _Babylon 5: Crusade._




The 'feel' of Crusade was very wrong, I thought.  Not sure why, maybe something to do with the acting style, and the scripts seemed leaden ; but what I'd like would be the more melodramatic approach of TOS; I love Kirk hamming it up!   Or "The Forbidden Planet", which I watched a bit of a few days ago - now _that's_ sf.     For some reason JMS seems to reserve the meaty writing & acting for the alien characters like Londo & G'kar, his humans seem very flat & wooden, which could be a big problem for any JMS-Trek.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> but what I'd like would be the more melodramatic approach of TOS; I love Kirk hamming it up!




While old trek has good points, a new show would have to be able to survive in today's mass market.  And Kirk-style melodrama is gonna flop big-time with them overall public.  Fiction style changes with time, and Trek has to change with it if it wants to survive.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2005)

Hmm.  Mebbee.  Like I said, Londo & G'kar were very theatrical characters, and popular enough AFAIK.  And it certainly wasn't too much melodrama that killed Enterprise, it was the feeling that it was no different from bland TNG or Voyager, with touchy-feely characters devoid of emotion (though Trip certainly had promise in s1 & we haven't had s4 here).  Buffy has the melodrama, but combined with postmodernist 'knowingness' - that could work ok in sciffy, esp if you had a straight-up Captain and reserved the wisecracks for other characters (I was a big fan of Riley in BtVS, admittedly I was probably in the minority).


----------



## Mallus (Feb 21, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> And Kirk-style melodrama is gonna flop big-time with them overall public.



But John Crighton-style melodrama would do just fine...

Kirk's semi-barechested, internally-rhyming humanist speechifying evolved into Crichton's clad-in-castoff-festishwear, self-reflexively snarky humanist speechifying.

They're really pretty similar, once you get to the creamy nougat center.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> They're really pretty similar, once you get to the creamy nougat center.




Yeah, but as they say, the devil is in the details.  Whether that nougat is covered in rich dark chocolate or cheap carob maters.  Londo, G'Kar, and JC all have melodrama, but they also react to things in a plausible manner.  And their melodrama has consequences.  Kirk was not presented as a plausible person, but instead as an icon.  And consequences didn't arrive in TOS until they started doing movies.

They noted that times had changed when they did movies.  Why should they ignore it when doing new TV series?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 21, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Mebbee.  Like I said, Londo & G'kar were very theatrical characters, and popular enough AFAIK.  And it certainly wasn't too much melodrama that killed Enterprise, it was the feeling that it was no different from bland TNG or Voyager, with touchy-feely characters devoid of emotion (though Trip certainly had promise in s1 & we haven't had s4 here).




I liked Londo Mollari and G'Kar. Their hatred of one another made for great storytelling, even to the "bitter end".... They had probably the most flavor of anyone on the B5 cast. I haven't seen all the eps and came in during, I think, season 3, but I got hooked from then on. TNG was pretty good as well, especially later on when they decided to flesh out the characters more than they ever had before. DS9 was ok until the last 2-3 years when they started the Dominion War arc (mostly to compete with B5's stellar storyline and plotting that was stomping it into the ground ratings-wise) and kept on with the great stories from there.


----------

