# Star Trek cast blames the bosses



## myrdden (May 12, 2005)

The story 

The details...



> The scene: A conference call with Star Trek: Enterprise exec producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga and a dozen or so reporters. Braga is on his car cellphone.
> 
> Suddenly, over the phone comes the sound of a jet flying by. "That's Brannon flying out of town," quips Berman. "The fans are chasing him with scythes."
> 
> ...


----------



## EricNoah (May 12, 2005)

The article doesn't actually say much about the cast and the blaming... any more details on that anywhere?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 12, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> The article doesn't actually say much about the cast and the blaming... any more details on that anywhere?



If you google, you'll probably be able to find the thing about the actor who does the female vulcan. I believe it was something along the lines of strip me naked all day but if the plot and story isn't there, it's not going to sell.

I've never watched the show, but I heard that she immediatly went from logic to being rapped, going into some mind issues of sexuality, etc.... (basically 7 of 9 again)


----------



## Ranger REG (May 12, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If you google, you'll probably be able to find the thing about the actor who does the female vulcan.



You mean *actress,* Jolene Blalock. (How could I not remember a surfer girl who dressed provocatively for _Maxim_?)   

She once complained about _Enterprise_ series finale episode that include _TNG_ castmembers Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis. Previous _Trek_ series have never used castmembers from other series in their own series finales. Even I questioned that decision for the episode's story, which oddly enough but not surprising, Berman & Braga have written it ... not Manny Coto.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 12, 2005)

I guess those pointy ears are helpful when surfing. Act like a stabilizer (like the tail on an airplane..)


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 12, 2005)

Blame game.  No one listened when it was taking place during the 1st nad 2nd season, the only people with issues were the fans, where were the actors then?


----------



## Ranger REG (May 12, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I guess those pointy ears are helpful when surfing. Act like a stabilizer (like the tail on an airplane..)



For a culture that lived on a mostly dry arid desert planet, they're natural swimmers, including Mr. Spock*.   

* Read _Enterprise: The First Adventure_ by Vonda N. McIntyre.


----------



## Truth Seeker (May 12, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> The article doesn't actually say much about the cast and the blaming... any more details on that anywhere?




1.Berman Rebukes Reruns, Rebuts Bakula; TREK Talkie on Back Burner

2.Rick Berman Addresses Fan Criticisms, Says Season 4 Was Not The Manny Coto Show

3.Jolene Blalock: "I Had Assumptions"

And the article prompted the ending of all further reports on this franchise:STARTREK:Its Long Trek Over, the Enterprise Pulls Into Dry Dock

All provided by TREKWEB.com.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 12, 2005)

I remember a story about Jolene Blalock arguing with the producers about her character (in one scene) watching a movie during one of Enterprise's "Movie Nights," and her character is called to eat popcorn bare-handed, especially since it's been established that Vulcans don't eat with their bare hands.

IIRC, they even rejected T'Pol eating with a napkin in her hand.


----------



## Truth Seeker (May 12, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I remember a story about Jolene Blalock arguing with the producers about her character (in one scene) watching a movie during one of Enterprise's "Movie Nights," and her character is called to eat popcorn bare-handed, especially since it's been established that Vulcans don't eat with their bare hands.
> 
> IIRC, they even rejected T'Pol eating with a napkin in her hand.




I heard that too...in the end, I am glad she spoke her mind, even if, it took two seasons after the start of the show. She got ripped for saying anything at the start, but now as the dust disappears...now some people are starting to grasp the bigger picture. I always like her, not for the body *that was second *, but for her ability to carry the character, many times I rewind to the tape, just to see what she was channeling.

In my books, she had a tough time, but she did try to do her best...kudos to her.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 13, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> I heard that too...in the end, I am glad she spoke her mind, even if, it took two seasons after the start of the show. She got ripped for saying anything at the start, but now as the dust disappears...now some people are starting to grasp the bigger picture. I always like her, not for the body *that was second *, but for her ability to carry the character, many times I rewind to the tape, just to see what she was channeling.
> 
> In my books, she had a tough time, but she did try to do her best...kudos to her.




Oh, absolutely.

I remember when Enterprise was first being presented to the public, everyone thought she was there to "be the new 7 of 9." Well, that showed THEM.


----------



## Truth Seeker (May 13, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely.
> 
> I remember when Enterprise was first being presented to the public, everyone thought she was there to "be the new 7 of 9." Well, that showed THEM.




Indeed...but as a small after though, she has expressed the idea of reprising the role, if asked. With someone writing the script with the true deceny on what the character should be.

And which reminds me, I have to put up the spoiler thread earlier tommorrow. And try to give a fitting end to the cast.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 13, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Blame game.  No one listened when it was taking place during the 1st nad 2nd season, the only people with issues were the fans, where were the actors then?



Would you complain on the first few months of your employment? Or are you the type willing to quit your jobs (plural) on creative principle?


----------



## Ranger REG (May 13, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely.
> 
> I remember when Enterprise was first being presented to the public, everyone thought she was there to "be the new 7 of 9." Well, that showed THEM.



That's because Jeri Ryan would object to having her boyfriend, producer Brannon Braga bringing Jolene home.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 13, 2005)

Good. The prequel movie I have been hearing about is kaput. This is one good thing about the cancellation of the show.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 13, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Would you complain on the first few months of your employment? Or are you the type willing to quit your jobs (plural) on creative principle?



It is the responsibily of an employee to identify problems and issues to suggest ideas to the improvement of processes and efficiency.  They even have suggestion boxes if you don't want to be known and offer a cash reward if used!  I work for a good place...

But are we talking first few months or years.  the best I can think on why one did not speak out was due to contracts that the actors sign have gag orders built in.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Blame game.  No one listened when it was taking place during the 1st nad 2nd season, the only people with issues were the fans, where were the actors then?




Well, for one thing, it is somewhat difficult to give serious criticism of your boss while he's still your boss, no?  How often do you make public statements, that are likely to be printed in the papers, that your company is poorly run, hm?

For another thing, over the past four years we _have_ seen signs that the cast wasn't happy about the way things were running.  Always phrased delicately, and limited in scope, but objections were made.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 13, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Good. The prequel movie I have been hearing about is kaput. This is one good thing about the cancellation of the show.




It's still up on IMDb. Says it's slated for 2007.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 13, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, for one thing, it is somewhat difficult to give serious criticism of your boss while he's still your boss, no?  How often do you make public statements, that are likely to be printed in the papers, that your company is poorly run, hm?
> 
> For another thing, over the past four years we _have_ seen signs that the cast wasn't happy about the way things were running.  Always phrased delicately, and limited in scope, but objections were made.



We do a 360 review process, it is a pain but     My latest outcry was dealing with raises and bonuses, everyday employees loosing 1% annually  from 4 to 3 and yet Chiefs geting a 5% increase from 15 to 20 for same performance rating, just because of title.  

I am not the best person to be discussing this I have come to realize, apples and oranges.


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (May 13, 2005)

Berman talks about fatigue.  Well Berman and Braga _are_ the fatigue.  This franchise has been in their hands a long time and at every new inception of Trek the audience became smaller as it went.  Now I could be wrong, but I have never heard either of them take blame for any of Trek's demise.


----------



## Truth Seeker (May 13, 2005)

Rl'Halsinor said:
			
		

> Berman talks about fatigue. Well Berman and Braga _are_ the fatigue. This franchise has been in their hands a long time and at every new inception of Trek the audience became smaller as it went. Now I could be wrong, but I have never heard either of them take blame for any of Trek's demise.




And you'll never will...


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> It is the responsibily of an employee to identify problems and issues to suggest ideas to the improvement of processes and efficiency.




Yes, but it is not the responsibility of the employee to make those issues and ideas known _to the public_.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Such stuff is generally supposed to be confidential.

Thus, it isn't really fair to ask, "Where were the actors?"  You make it sound as if the actors should make their issues known to us, and that us not hearing much suggests they were falling down on the job, when the opposite is more true.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 13, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, but it is not the responsibility of the employee to make those issues and ideas known _to the public_.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Such stuff is generally supposed to be confidential.
> 
> Thus, it isn't really fair to ask, "Where were the actors?"  You make it sound as if the actors should make their issues known to us, and that us not hearing much suggests they were falling down on the job, when the opposite is more true.



You are right, I am being too critical.  

As my last post, I am not the best person to be discussing this I have come to realize, apples and oranges.


----------



## driver8 (May 14, 2005)

I frankly dont really believe in this fatigue factor. In USA Today, TV Critic Robert Bianco summed it up pretty well I think:

These are no longer the voyages of the Star Trek: Enterprise (UPN, Friday, 8 ET/PT), which ends its series run with a two-hour finale that features two guests from the more successful Next Generation, Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis. Enterprise won't be much missed, but before it goes — taking the franchise with it — let's get one thing clear. The show didn't fail because of Trek exhaustion. It failed for the same reason many shows fail: bad writing in general and an insufficiently developed premise in particular. Enterprise was less a show than an idea for a show, and you can only force so long a run out of that.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/criticscorner/2005-05-12-critics-corner_x.htm


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (May 14, 2005)

Nice and neat and rebukes the Berman "fatigue" gambit.  I don't think in the least that the Trek world is fatigued because you got a whole galaxy out there with so much to explore.  But I still contend that it is Berman and Braga who are the fatigue here.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 14, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> It is the responsibily of an employee to identify problems and issues to suggest ideas to the improvement of processes and efficiency.  They even have suggestion boxes if you don't want to be known and offer a cash reward if used!  I work for a good place...



Is it safe to assume this good place you work for is not Paramount studio or the _Star Trek_ franchise headquarters, and that your boss is not Rick Berman?




			
				Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> But are we talking first few months or years.  the best I can think on why one did not speak out was due to contracts that the actors sign have gag orders built in.



If I were a tyrant like Berman I'd do the same for all my employees. AFAIC, the series finale episode have been shot and she got her final paycheck, so Jolene is in no obligation to keep the gag order on.

As for fatigue, it's just an excuse for Berman to save face as he look for another work on Paramount or anywhere in Hollywood. IOW, he covered up the fact that this Paramount's legal frontman is no longer credited the creative genius he was during _TNG,_ when he replaced Gene Roddenberry.


----------



## S'mon (May 14, 2005)

It's weird - in UK we're about 7 episodes into the season, and under Manny Coto's new direction with the Eugenics & Vulcan arcs the show has gone from the mostly unwatchable crap of seasons 1-3 to near-brilliance that captures what was great about the original series & Trek in general, a wonderful evocation of TOS, faithful to its roots... I'll be sorry to see it go, which I couldn't have imagined thinking before this season.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 15, 2005)

Heh, I think that everybody but Braga and Berman are blaming Braga and Berman... (Sort of like blaming the loss of the Titanic on the iceberg...) I wish that somebody had taken the show from their hands. I really liked the idea, and then they ruined it. Heck, I wanted to run a pre original series Star Trek game for years - slow ships, classic races as yet unencountered (do you really think that the first meeting with the Tellerites went smoothly?).

What I really want is a pre original series ST done by Strazinski...

The Auld Grump, or better yet, a new B5 series that does not have to worry about finishing the season...


----------



## Orius (May 15, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> Suddenly, over the phone comes the sound of a jet flying by. "That's Brannon flying out of town," quips Berman. "The fans are chasing him with scythes."




Good call.  Scythes have a crit multiplier of x4.


----------



## Vigilance (May 15, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Heh, I think that everybody but Braga and Berman are blaming Braga and Berman...




Even Manny Coto... his comment that, when he presented the idea of doing many shows that tied Enterprise directly into TOS, to which Berman replied "there are only like 3 fans of TOS left" made Berman look like the pointy-haired boss to me. 

Chuck


----------



## Orius (May 15, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> It's weird - in UK we're about 7 episodes into the season, and under Manny Coto's new direction with the Eugenics & Vulcan arcs the show has gone from the mostly unwatchable crap of seasons 1-3 to near-brilliance that captures what was great about the original series & Trek in general, a wonderful evocation of TOS, faithful to its roots... I'll be sorry to see it go, which I couldn't have imagined thinking before this season.




That's what makes it more painful.  Coto's direction showed that Trek still had some life in it yet, and that made it more painful to see it go.  If it ended about a year or so ago, and with the final episode that did air, I wouldn't have cared.  But the fault lies squarely in the fact that Bermaga basically still wanted to keep doing TNG and had no fresh ideas left, while Paramount buried it on a third rate network with lousy Nielsens that was developing an audience that wasn't likely to be attracted to Star Trek.


----------



## wingsandsword (May 15, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Even Manny Coto... his comment that, when he presented the idea of doing many shows that tied Enterprise directly into TOS, to which Berman replied "there are only like 3 fans of TOS left" made Berman look like the pointy-haired boss to me.



There is a little quote like that attributed to Braga from the production of First Contact.  Apparently Brannon Braga wanted to get rid of Zephram Cochrane and make the inventor of Warp Drive a hot woman to be a love interest for Picard.  The various advisors and consultants screamed bloody murder about the blatant continuity breach and Braga dismissed them with "Who gives a s***, only 1% of the fans will know OR care"  and "You don't make a movie based on one episode."  He was reportedly talked out of this reluctantly, the love interest became Lily Sloane, and the romance angle was toned down in later drafts.

I think a lot of the problem of the B&B era has been that Berman consideres continuity (and TOS) to be obstacles to overcome, and want flash-bang time travel and shoot-em-up episodes with big fancy superweapons, bigger and badder guns and ships every season, and lots of technobabble to provide convenient deus ex machinas, and none of that annoying plotting, and thinking, and those irritating story arcs that involve coming up with stuff in advance (like how they never even had an idea who "future guy").  Rick Berman was the kind of executive who ruined Firefly, Crusade, and now Enterprise.

It's not very likely, but my dream series is one set in the decades between Star Trek VI and TNG (like maybe the later missions of Enterprise-B?), as I always loved the movie-era uniforms and ships, with the series written and produced by Ronald Moore, Manny Coto and J. Michael Stracyniski, with maybe some more episodes done by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, DC Fontana, and Harlan Ellison.  Berman/Braga completely out of the loop with regards to production, and as I'm sure JMS could do so well, an overarching plot arc to the entire series so that it actualy goes somewhere and they can have actual foreshadowing, and character development, and not feel like each big threat and huge nemesis is just a ratings stunt pulled out of nowhere.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 15, 2005)

Whereas Stracyniski (Good gravy I massacred his name!) considers continuity to be a major asset.

I have wanted to thump B&B since Next Gen. The only Trek I have liked in the last *mumble* years is DS9. There was even a minor attempt at a contiuous plot in the series.

The Auld Grump, okay, watching Kirk get hit by a bridge in Generations was fun... I never did much like Kirk...


----------



## mojo1701 (May 15, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I never did much like Kirk...




Oh, my...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 16, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Oh, my...




Heh, it has to do with my father having been in the Navy - commanders like him get people dead. He would have been fine as a 1st officer, as captain...

Picard was closer to career Navy. Though one of my favorite lines in STtNG was Picard say 'I have never stated my opinions from behind a loaded gun.' - While standing in the command bridge of a heavy cruiser... 

The Auld Grump


----------



## bolen (May 16, 2005)

I thought it was brilliant.  If they had made the last show as good as the rest of the season (which from what I saw I liked) The fans would be angry the show was canceled  But since the last show reverted back to the traditional bad star trek.  Who could disagree with canceling the show?


----------



## Ranger REG (May 16, 2005)

bolen said:
			
		

> I thought it was brilliant.  If they had made the last show as good as the rest of the season (which from what I saw I liked) The fans would be angry the show was canceled  But since the last show reverted back to the traditional bad star trek.  Who could disagree with canceling the show?



That made absolutely no sense at all. Besides, we're already angry that UPN cancelled the show.


----------



## S'mon (May 16, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Heh, it has to do with my father having been in the Navy - commanders like him get people dead. He would have been fine as a 1st officer, as captain...




Yeah, I wouldn't want to serve under Kirk, but he's fun to watch!      Picard is fun to watch too, though.  Cisko & Janeway I found tedious, and Archer nearly as bad.  Trip was the only fun guy in Enterprise.  I agree w Blalock that the way they treated T'Pol was pretty abominable - screwing with characters is great _if_ you do other stuff too, like give them a chance to work through it (preferably by beating up bad guys Buffy-style).


----------



## James Heard (May 16, 2005)

I'm still hoping for a reboot sort of new Trek: re-envisioning the classic threads and epsiodes of TOS and starting each epsiode with an apologic slow roasting of B&B over a fire.

I don't think that I'd necessarily peg a "classic" Trek writer or anything to run the show. A fan, for sure, but I think as long as they were dedicated to making classic Trek for a new audience everything would be fine. That's essentially what B&B's problem is - not enough dedication or understanding about the essence of Star Trek. Well, that and the fact that they're low-talent hacks.

Anyways, for instance: What would a Star Trek revisited with say Spielberg in the Head Producer's office look like, or even Keven Smith (as long as he didn't slip up and make Star Clerks or let Affleck anywhere near it)? Could you toss a reboot of Star Trek in say a Wednesday night Prime Time slot if you could sucker a big name star of some sort to do series TV? Clooney as Kirk?

Just tossing out ideas, but it seems clear that Trek should at _least _be able to compete with Alias for viewers.


----------



## Torm (May 16, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Clooney as Kirk?



Too old, assuming we're keeping the "youngest starship captain" thing - which we should, IMO.


----------



## James Heard (May 16, 2005)

> Too old, assuming we're keeping the "youngest starship captain" thing - which we should, IMO.



Good point. I admit though, I've spoken about this idea several times and he's the only name that's come to mind yet. So he'd have to be, what? Late 30s or so? Obviously the demographics in Star Trek are different than you'd see in a wet navy, but I just can't imagine anyone handing anyone a star ship much younger than that.


----------



## DaveMage (May 16, 2005)

My vote would be to have the next series start with the TNG universe at the time that Picard retires.

Then you could have a completely new crew on the Enterprise going forward (as opposed to an Enterprise of the past).  It would also allow for occasional (read: during sweeps months) guest stars from TNG, DS9, and Voyager (although I'm not sure I'd really want to see any Voyager characters).


----------



## James Heard (May 16, 2005)

I'm not sure if I want to see any of the 90's series' _actors_ reprising their roles actually.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 17, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Just tossing out ideas, but it seems clear that Trek should at _least _be able to compete with Alias for viewers.



That's what those network "suits" want, which is why FOX cancelled good shows like _Firefly_ and _John Doe._ They want instant rating hits like ABC got for _Desperate Housewives_ and _Lost._

While genre shows are becoming more mainstream, they are not mainstream audience's major attraction. Network "suits" should know that. It takes a while to build up a fanbase, as long as the show's production keep cranking interesting stories week after week (and not the craps that Berman & Braga expelled from their brownholes).

_Enterprise_ would have been good. Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevens proved that in the fourth season. The franchise needs to be reconnected with the fans they have lost, the way WotC brought back _D&D_ 1e gamers to 3e. You bring back those fans, you can expand from there. Of course, some of them are too disgruntled to ever trust Paramount to roll out a decent _Trek_ story. The first step Paramount must do to make reparation is to immediately replace the current head of the franchise, Rick Berman. Let's face it, the guy should have been gone a long time ago.


----------



## James Heard (May 17, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That's what those network "suits" want, which is why FOX cancelled good shows like _Firefly_ and _John Doe._ They want instant rating hits like ABC got for _Desperate Housewives_ and _Lost._
> 
> While genre shows are becoming more mainstream, they are not mainstream audience's major attraction. Network "suits" should know that. It takes a while to build up a fanbase, as long as the show's production keep cranking interesting stories week after week (and not the craps that Berman & Braga expelled from their brownholes).



I just don't agree with the assumption that Star Trek couldn't win that instant audience the brand managers want. I'm pushing for the reboot because it would have certain gimme elements:

1. Like it or hate it, people would watch to see what was done with it - just like every Star Trek series since TOS. 

2. No reintroducing the characters. Whether or not you think that Kirk walks on water or not, I'm fairly certain that everyone but the very youngest viewers out there would instantly know what to expect. Character development, something that's pretty hit or miss in Trek, could be the focus. 

3. Continuity. Unlike Enterprise, where B&B recklessly screwed with just about every canon element of Trek they could scrape their paws on, a reboot would essentially "fix" this. Especially if the writers took advantage of the possibilities in "knowing how the story ends", which could allow Trek to use some storytelling techniques that very few shows every get the opportunity to use effectively. 

4. The time is ripe. It's a mythos reeling under mismanagement, if Universal leaves the brand as it is now who's to say what shape the thing is going to be in the next time they want to sink a few million dollars on a Trek movie gamble. Enterprise ticked enough fans off that if you'd _ever_ manage a reboot it would just about have to be now.

5. Kirk must fly again. Like Superman or Hamlet, it would be a terrible shame if the role were never reprised. Unlike Enterprise, which seemed like they were toying with the audience sometimes with reprising elements of TOS (in a bad way), a reboot could revel in the flat out certainty that comes from shamelessly copying.

6. Old actors, different roles. Speaking of reveling in copying, the episodes of Smallville with Christopher Reeve in them before his death were interesting and much better done than seeing the aging Frakes try to be Riker again. Seeing Brent Spinner _not_ being Data was nice in Enterprise. I think giving every old Star Fleet veteran a chance to visit as completely different characters is a neat idea. If Frakes wants to be the new Kirk's chef and show up every twentieth episode giving advice on the Romulan Cloaking Device.... 

Anyways, a Trek that's not on the screen isn't garnering new Trek fans. Since the old Trek fans are getting...old this is a bad thing. How you can support your massive Trek-related sales each year with everyone getting older and each Trek show getting steadily smaller in audience and worse and worse I can't imagine. Why not go back to what worked in the first place? Of course I also think that UPN should take the claws off the brand a little and see if they couldn't argue/fund/beg/sell the whole idea to one of the larger networks. Being able to compete with Alias would be great, but coming on right after Alias or Lost on the same channel would be golden. Film it somewhere cheap, and run the animations from non-union sweatshops in Bollywood or something.

If anyone is associated with Universal: I'm willing to move, and I'd write the first two episodes for room & board


----------



## Ranger REG (May 17, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Anyways, a Trek that's not on the screen isn't garnering new Trek fans. Since the old Trek fans are getting...old this is a bad thing. How you can support your massive Trek-related sales each year with everyone getting older and each Trek show getting steadily smaller in audience and worse and worse I can't imagine. Why not go back to what worked in the first place? Of course I also think that UPN should take the claws off the brand a little and see if they couldn't argue/fund/beg/sell the whole idea to one of the larger networks. Being able to compete with Alias would be great, but coming on right after Alias or Lost on the same channel would be golden. Film it somewhere cheap, and run the animations from non-union sweatshops in Bollywood or something.



I dunno. _Star Wars_ seems to do pretty well in between the decade-long gap between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy. Of course, it does help to continue the _SWU_ through a series of novels.

Though I have often said that that _Star Trek_ novels usually non-canon, it still does not diminish their entertainment value. A well-written _Trek_ novels can impress a full season's worth of B&B _Trek_ episodes.

As for UPN, they had the sweetest deal when they ordered _Enterprise_ episodes this last season. Compared to the price of 3rd season's esisodes , they got a 2-for-1 special. Nah. My conspiracy theory rest upon the newly appointed chief of Viacom (parent company of Paramount, CBS, and UPN ... among other) -- Les Moonves -- who have some other ambitious plan for UPN. He want it and CBS to occupy two of the top three network slots.




			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> If anyone is associated with Universal: I'm willing to move, and I'd write the first two episodes for room & board



Is there some closed-door dealing between Paramount and Universal that I do not know about?


----------



## Orius (May 18, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> The Auld Grump, okay, watching Kirk get hit by a bridge in Generations was fun... I never did much like Kirk...




Blasphemy!!!

Ok, just joking, and I even have to admit I always thought Spock was cooler than Kirk.  Still, the way they bumped him off in Generations was just stupid.


----------



## Orius (May 18, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Heh, it has to do with my father having been in the Navy - commanders like him get people dead.




Hence the red shirts.


----------



## S'mon (May 19, 2005)

I can definitely see the attraction of a re-imagining TOS, it worked brilliantly for Galactica IMO, and Trek would presumably have a bigger budget.  Of course Andromeda originally _was_ based off Rodenberry's re-imagining of TOS, and was a good show in the first season or two until Sorbo ruined it.  Andromeda had probably the best opening sequence I've ever seen, and fantastic opening credits - "The Long Night Has Fallen".  It might be a vain hope but I'd love to see Trek take a similar approach to what Rodenberry intended, start off in the blasted ruins of the Federation, the Dream That Died, and follow a small cast of heroes as they strive to rebuild.  You could have a few characters from earlier series in it, preferably as guest stars.  Add in lots of baby-boomer angst about the loss of '60s innocence (ie The Federation) and '00s cynicism (a la Galactica) and you're golden.


----------



## S'mon (May 19, 2005)

Alternatively, a small band of heroic rebels fighting against the tyrannical Federation with its thought-control, "re-education centres" and impersonal bureaucracy (Star Fleet) a la Blake's 7, would be cool too.


----------



## Mad Hatter (May 19, 2005)

I have to agree that the premise of the showis great because it is ripe with so much opportunity.  I liked how the Vulcans weren't just viewed as the awesome aliens who help us out.  There was friction and I liked that aspect of it.  You have the early evolution of how humans viewed the other races and how the other races viewed humans and each other.  That was great, but the writing simply didn't back it up.  

But if they had to fail, I am glad they failed by going backward and not forward.  I mean what kind of franchise and story writing can you have with all the push the button and the day is saved, technobable, or routing everything through the deflector array action going on?

At the start of this I told my friends that I'd love to watch a Trek franchise that was centered around the academy because then you could have some old cast members and maybe even resolve some Voyager issues.  But that's just me.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 19, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I can definitely see the attraction of a re-imagining TOS, it worked brilliantly for Galactica IMO, and Trek would presumably have a bigger budget.



I don't think so. What works for one sci-fi series [albeit short-lived in the late 70's] may not work for such a long-running establishment (5 live-action series, 1 animated series, 10 films, and a library collection of novels).

However, I can see them do a Special Edition of _TOS,_ by touching up areas with CG special effects, including the ship and space footages.


----------



## James Heard (May 19, 2005)

> I don't think so. What works for one sci-fi series [albeit short-lived in the late 70's] may not work for such a long-running establishment (5 live-action series, 1 animated series, 10 films, and a library collection of novels).



On the other hand, it doesn't suggest that it _wouldn't_ work either. We just don't know. All we know is that TOS is decisively, most surely, Trek in feel because it's the series with the most Gene in it. That's something that you might build on (or destroy I guess), but at least you'd have made the gamble.


----------



## Aristotle (May 20, 2005)

I watched the original show and next generation. I fell off of DS9 about halfway through, and couldn't bear to watch Enterprise after the first few episodes. I doubt I'd invest any of my time into watching a 'reboot'. I would like to see a new Star Trek, especially since the franchise has been pretty much dead to me (with the exception of movies) since Next Generation went off the air. But about the only Trek I'm willing to consider would be one that takes place sometime after Next Generation. I want to see the franchise continued, not a prequel and not a reimagined rehash.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 20, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I don't think so. What works for one sci-fi series [albeit short-lived in the late 70's] may not work for such a long-running establishment (5 live-action series, 1 animated series, 10 films, and a library collection of novels).




I am not in favour of reboot, either.

We need to set our sights farther, a more futuristic ship, and, say... a bridge that doesn't have sparking, exploding consoles after a torpedo hit. Where did they get the electricity to produce such a feat?


----------



## James Heard (May 20, 2005)

You could have a more futuristic ship with a reboot. Just because the original was shot  during the 60s doesn't mean you could't reimagine the technology different. It would all be about finding and declaring the essential sacred cows of TOS. The uniforms, the cylindrical pods, the cast roles, and the Star Fleet issue two-fisted punch come to mind.


----------



## DaveMage (May 20, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> I fell off of DS9 about halfway through...




Then you missed the best part.


----------



## Vigilance (May 20, 2005)

Trek will be back and I dont think it will be reimagined.

The idea that a Paramount exec wont walk in one day and say "hey, we can put these shows on the air and make money on them, then sell them as DVD box sets for 100 bucks plus, then syndicate them forever and possibly make RPGs and CRPGs out of them... that's a good product"

You see franchises go through hard times and lack of faith, like with WB and the Superman and Batman movie franchises, but they always come back, because a proven commodity is always attractive.

And the comparison between Trek and BSG, when it comes time to discuss any possible reboot, is to me laughable. BSG has about as much in common with Trek as Space: 1999 does with Trek. 

Umm... they're both sci-fi.

Also, I fail to see how people discussing reboots can say "look at BSG, its good, Enterprise sucked". Now I might prefer BSG to Enterprise, but BSG has had one 13 episode season and Enterprise put 100 episodes on the air. Before you start the discussion of merit, let's see if BSG lasts as long, which at 13 episodes a season would be unlikely.

Enterprise was only a failure by TREK standards. In TV standards, 4 years and 100 episodes is the barometer of success.

Chuck


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> I watched the original show and next generation. I fell off of DS9 about halfway through, and couldn't bear to watch Enterprise after the first few episodes.



Oh, gawd. Please tell me you're not a _Voyager_ fan.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I am not in favour of reboot, either.
> 
> We need to set our sights farther, a more futuristic ship, and, say... a bridge that doesn't have sparking, exploding consoles after a torpedo hit. Where did they get the electricity to produce such a feat?



Well, it is an EPS (electroplasma systems) network.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> You could have a more futuristic ship with a reboot. Just because the original was shot  during the 60s doesn't mean you could't reimagine the technology different. It would all be about finding and declaring the essential sacred cows of TOS. The uniforms, the cylindrical pods, the cast roles, and the Star Fleet issue two-fisted punch come to mind.



Hehehe.

Isn't that what _Enterprise_ is about?  

I remembered my initial impression when I saw the "Akiraprise" ship for the show. Looks a bit too advanced for something in the 22nd century, like seeing spandex in the Victorian age fashion.


----------



## wingsandsword (May 20, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Now I might prefer BSG to Enterprise, but BSG has had one 13 episode season and Enterprise put 100 episodes on the air. Before you start the discussion of merit, let's see if BSG lasts as long, which at 13 episodes a season would be unlikely.



13 episodes for first season is pretty typical for new series now, networks like it because it cuts potential losses if it's a bomb, and they can always order more if it's a hit.  The second season of New Galactica is a full-sized season.

However, in comparing Enterprise and Galactica, they do have some things in common.  They were both met at the launch by hostile fans who saw it as a potential desecration of an old favorite from decades past, and they both ran on relatively minor networks.

Galactica became the biggest ratings hit in Sci-Fi history and won over fans, and establishing itself with enough of a loyal fan base not only to succeed, but prosper.  Enterprise started out big on it's name alone, and the ratings began a downward spiral and some fears were confirmed, and the attitudes of the fans were generally ignored by the producers.  By the time New BSG came out, it was getting higher ratings than Enterprise, and did in 13 episodes what Enterprise couldn't do in 98 episodes: improve it's ratings above it's debut levels and win over skeptical fans.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> However, in comparing Enterprise and Galactica, they do have some things in common.  They were both met at the launch by hostile fans who saw it as a potential desecration of an old favorite from decades past, and they both ran on relatively minor networks.



I don't recall a large hostility over _Enterprise._ Some of us actually took a wait-n-see approach, but we have pre-show expectation that it will be about the Birth of the Federation.

Instead, it's all about that damn Temporal Cold War crap.

But if you want hostility, reboot _TOS._


----------



## James Heard (May 20, 2005)

> But if you want hostility, reboot TOS.



Maybe, but you could only go up from "I hate this show on its premise of rebooting a legend."


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Maybe, but you could only go up from "I hate this show on its premise of rebooting a legend."



Nah. I would disown my future children and grandchildren if they prefer a reboot _TOS._


----------



## Arnwyn (May 20, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> I doubt I'd invest any of my time into watching a 'reboot'.



Yeah, same with me.

Really, I don't begrudge anyone for suggesting/wanting a 'reboot' - but I sure as heck wouldn't watch it.


----------



## James Heard (May 20, 2005)

> Really, I don't begrudge anyone for suggesting/wanting a 'reboot' - but I sure as heck wouldn't watch it.



I believe that as much as I believe people don't watch wardrobe malfunctions and train wrecks. All you have to do is do it right, and not BE that train wreck though...


----------



## mojo1701 (May 20, 2005)

I doubt we'd want to see anyone else play Kirk.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 20, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I believe that as much as...



Uh... okay...


----------



## takyris (May 20, 2005)

I'm not sure a reboot of TOS would work -- BSG re-imagined the entire universe, scrapping large sections of canon in order to produce an entirely new show. While the idea of reliving some of the glory days of TOS with better effects has a certain appeal, doing it like BSG did it -- making sweeping changes to the Federation, removing the Romulans entirely, making the Klingons religious zealots, and turning Spock into a blond woman -- would likely cause more harm than good.

I was one of the folks not looking forward to BSG -- not because the original show was sacred, but because the original show was stupid. I was wrong to stay away from the show for as long as I did. It has its problems, but those aren't the problems that the original show had. It's using the names from the old show, and the 10,000-foot view of the show is the same, but that's about it. If you did that with TOS, there'd be rioting in the streets.

I'd love to see a different show-concept in the Star Trek universe -- maybe _Homicide: Life on the Trek_, a procedural in the universe, or maybe _Section 31_, a spy-game show in that universe, or maybe _Trek Wing_, a political show following the work of the UFP President and his staff. Or they give Peter David a lot of money and make his _New Frontier_ into a series.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 20, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Or they give Peter David a lot of money and make his _New Frontier_ into a series.




You mean, a TV series?


----------



## takyris (May 20, 2005)

Yeah, sorry. Dur. A TV series. It's too busy to do well as a movie (unless they got a commitment to a lot of movies, which I doubt they'd get), and it already is a respectable novel series. (Well, respected by me. It's about the only Star Trek novel series I read anymore.)


----------



## DaveMage (May 20, 2005)

I've read a couple of Peter David's novels and liked them (although not the New Frontier ones).  

Still, though, I'd love to see jms take the reigns...


----------



## Aristotle (May 20, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Oh, gawd. Please tell me you're not a _Voyager_ fan.



hah! The only reason it wasn't in my list of viewing history was because I had forgotten the show existed. I've seen a couple of episodes, and even liked some of the character concepts, but didn't get deep enough into it to attempt to get to a TV to see it with any regularity.

I watched the original Trek any time I could growing up, but I would consider myself a Next Generation fan above all other series to date.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I believe that as much as I believe people don't watch wardrobe malfunctions and train wrecks. All you have to do is do it right, and not BE that train wreck though...



And I believe they can do it right without having to reboot any of the _Trek_ series (no matter how low my opinion about a couple of them).

Manny Coto proved that in the fourth season of _Enterprise_ (with helps from Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens). I mean they're like the next generation of _Trek_ writer Trinity since Gene L. Coon, Harlan Ellison, and DC Fontana.

Remember my pre-show expectation ("Birth of the Federation" arc)? Well, they deliver on that, not Berman nor Braga. Too bad they didn't have one more season to flesh that out.

While you can suggest what new shows they like, I'm much more interested in having someone get the boot: Rick Berman. So, don't distract me from this priority. He's got to go before we can do anything to revive the franchise.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 20, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> I watched the original Trek any time I could growing up, but I would consider myself a Next Generation fan above all other series to date.



If _DS9_ hadn't come out, _TNG_ would be second to _TOS._ There is nothing like the originals (be it _Star Trek_ or _Star Wars_).


----------



## Vigilance (May 20, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 13 episodes for first season is pretty typical for new series now, networks like it because it cuts potential losses if it's a bomb, and they can always order more if it's a hit.  The second season of New Galactica is a full-sized season.




From what I have heard Ron Moore say, they ordered a second 13 episode season, not a full season.

Moore thinks that's a good thing btw, more time to polish the writing, like you would see on an HBO show. 

I still think BSG would be lucky to hit 100 episodes, and I dont think the conversation of whether or not it has "out trekked" trek or should be used as the template for the future of trek, until we know where the show stands 5 years from now.

It *IS* possible, as good as BSG is (and again I am a fan of both trek and BSG, so this isn't an us vs. them thing for me) that it will peter out. 

Few things compare to trek in terms of longevity, which is why I think current reboot talks are WAY premature.



> However, in comparing Enterprise and Galactica, they do have some things in common.  They were both met at the launch by hostile fans who saw it as a potential desecration of an old favorite from decades past, and they both ran on relatively minor networks.




I disagree. The die-hard BSG fans were hostile to BSG, but they were a small percentage of the total audience.

On the other hand, those of us who wanted to know why Enterprise looked more advanced than the ships that came after it in trek lore, who wanted to know why the Klingons had ridges, then didnt, then had them again, who wanted to know why the Vulcans didnt act like... Vulcans, we were a LARGE part of Enterprise's audience

I also hasten to add that Manny Coto answered all those questions in spades, knocking them out of the park. THAT attitude would have won over fans quickly, just as BSG's approach won over a lot of fans quickly.

But Bermaga's approach in the early days of the show was to turn a deaf ear to fan questions and complaints, then when the ratings went down, BLAME the fans for not supporting their vision.

In short, I don't think there's many similarities at all between Enterprise and BSG. One took a large audience and alienated it, the other took an alienated audience and built it into a much larger following.



> Galactica became the biggest ratings hit in Sci-Fi history and won over fans, and establishing itself with enough of a loyal fan base not only to succeed, but prosper.  Enterprise started out big on it's name alone, and the ratings began a downward spiral and some fears were confirmed, and the attitudes of the fans were generally ignored by the producers.  By the time New BSG came out, it was getting higher ratings than Enterprise, and did in 13 episodes what Enterprise couldn't do in 98 episodes: improve it's ratings above it's debut levels and win over skeptical fans.




I agree with these statements, but I dont think Enteprise and BSG have anything in common, as you yourself illustrate. 

Put simply, BSG had a creative vision which slowly won over fans. Ent had no vision for three years, except to continue a profitable franchise, and that never works.

Bermaga call it franchise fatigue, but it wasnt the franchise that tired, it was THEM.

And like most trek fans, I encourage Bermaga to take a long break from their fatigue.

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (May 21, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> I'd love to see a different show-concept in the Star Trek universe -- maybe _Homicide: Life on the Trek_, a procedural in the universe, or maybe _Section 31_, a spy-game show in that universe, or maybe _Trek Wing_, a political show following the work of the UFP President and his staff. Or they give Peter David a lot of money and make his _New Frontier_ into a series.




Bless you tacky. 

All these concepts sound great. Bermaga always said they wanted to do something "new" rather than go "back to the well", but rather than come up with new concepts as you did above, their idea of "new" was to do TNG in a different place (Voyager) or in a different time (Enterprise), which isn't really new at all.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And like most trek fans, I encourage Bermaga to take a long break from their fatigue.



I hope "take a long break" is your code words for "resign and never set foot in California ever again."


----------



## S'mon (May 21, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> I'd love to see a different show-concept in the Star Trek universe -- maybe _Homicide: Life on the Trek_, a procedural in the universe, or maybe _Section 31_, a spy-game show in that universe, or maybe _Trek Wing_, a political show following the work of the UFP President and his staff.




By the time of STTNG the Federation President seems to be either non-existent or a pure figurehead; the Star Fleet bureaucracy controls everything worth controlling.  I guess a show about the fight (within Starfleet?) to restore representative democracy (ie elections!) to the impersonal bureaucracy of the Federation would be a lot of fun...


----------



## S'mon (May 21, 2005)

"But we have developed the perfect system of government - we don't _need_ elections!  Elections imply the government might be fallible and need changing, but Star Fleet is already perfect."

"Uh, right."


----------



## wingsandsword (May 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> From what I have heard Ron Moore say, they ordered a second 13 episode season, not a full season.



http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=30466

20 Episodes actually, straight from an official announcement on the Sci-Fi channel homepage.


----------



## Vigilance (May 21, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> By the time of STTNG the Federation President seems to be either non-existent or a pure figurehead; the Star Fleet bureaucracy controls everything worth controlling.  I guess a show about the fight (within Starfleet?) to restore representative democracy (ie elections!) to the impersonal bureaucracy of the Federation would be a lot of fun...




My impression was that the Federation Council ran things in a "one world one vote" type system. This would be like Journey to Babel every week, with strange aliens bickering and backstabbing, and we could have scenes with ships from across the UFP showing the results of the council's action (or inaction).

Then again, since we haven't ever gotten a close look at exactly how the UFP *is* run, we could get all sorts of things, which is what would make me want to see it.

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (May 21, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=30466
> 
> 20 Episodes actually, straight from an official announcement on the Sci-Fi channel homepage.




Sweet!

As I said, I'm a fan. I wish the Sopranos would go 20 episodes a season too 

That said, I stand by my statement that Enterprise was only a failure by the standards of Trek. As Scott Bakula said in a recent interview, Ent will be on 20 years from now when no one but trivia geeks will even be able to tell you the name of the show that replaced it, much less watch it.

Chuck


----------



## Ranger REG (May 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> That said, I stand by my statement that Enterprise was only a failure by the standards of Trek. As Scott Bakula said in a recent interview, Ent will be on 20 years from now when no one but trivia geeks will even be able to tell you the name of the show that replaced it, much less watch it.



Maybe it's a good thing I don't have cable. I haven't seen any syndicated _Trek_ reruns on non-cable network stations in my area.


----------



## S'mon (May 22, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Then again, since we haven't ever gotten a close look at exactly how the UFP *is* run, we could get all sorts of things, which is what would make me want to see it.




We know that daily life is policed by Starfleet, if you break the Eugenics laws you're put on trial before a Starfleet court...

To me it resembles a cross between the European Union and "1984".  In the EU system, the Member States nominally have power through the Council of Ministers, and there is a European Parliament, but in actuality it's the European Commission, an impersonal technocratic bureaucracy a la Starfleet, which makes laws and acts as the executive administration, while the judiciary the European Court of Justice is essentially an arm of the Commission.  Of course the EU is currently far less centralised & totalitarian than the Trek universe, but it is designed to evolve towards something resembling Trek's Federation.


----------



## Umbran (May 22, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> We know that daily life is policed by Starfleet, if you break the Eugenics laws you're put on trial before a Starfleet court...




Somehow, I doubt that breaking the eugenics laws counts as "everyday life".  Civilain, perhaps, but not everyday.  

In _Enterprise_ we see that humans aren't the only ones who have problems dealing with eugenics, so maybe those laws aren't only a human issue.  If it's not just a human issue, then it isn't unreasonable that enforcement goes under whichever body enforces Federation law.  If it is an interstellar issue, you need a body with interstellar reach to deal with it, no?

Now, we these days are understandably put on edge by the idea of the military taking on police functions as well.  But part of the posit is that we, in 2005, are still savages by comparison to our Starfleet descendants.


----------



## wingsandsword (May 22, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Now, we these days are understandably put on edge by the idea of the military taking on police functions as well.  But part of the posit is that we, in 2005, are still savages by comparison to our Starfleet descendants.



Well, Starfleet is more than just military, they are apparently exploration and scientific, and (Federal level) law enforcement as well.  In the modern US the Coast Guard is an armed service that performs some law-enforcement related tasks, those at sea, which is a pretty good analogy for Starfleet's law enforcement tasks.  Also, a military law enforcement body with Civil jurisdiction may be highly irregular to the English speaking modern world, but it exists in modern democracies, the Gendarmerie of France and former French colonies is a nationwide military police force.

Also note that the few times we see Starfleet acting in a Civilian law-enforcement capacity it is either in space, where nobody presumably they are the Federation body best equipped for the job, in extreme cases.  Violations of the Genetic Engineering/Eugenics laws meant to prevent another Eugenics Wars or Augment Crisis are probably under Starfleet jurisdiction because that degree of Genetic enhancement is treated by the UFP about the way we treat "weapons of mass destruction" in the modern world.  Dr. Julian Bashir is the *only* case of an Augment human in Star Trek lore who turned out well, without starting a world war, major crisis, severe biohazard (TNG "Unnatural Selection) or the process backfires and cripples the subject (DS9 "Statistical Probabilities" & "Chrysalis").  

The one time we see Starfleet just take over and start policing everywhere was in DS9 "Paradise Lost", where a rogue Admiral tries to stage a coup, overthrow the President and rule the Federation by martial law.  Note that this almost starts a civil war as direct day-to-day Starfleet policing was seen by the citizens of Earth as creating a police state, and Starfleet directly ruling was seen as a blatant power grab by many (those who supported the coup were given misinformation that it was to protect Earth and Starfleet from Changeling infiltrators).


----------



## Vigilance (May 22, 2005)

There's also TOS movies, which give a strong impression there are a lot of decisions made by the Federation Council itself (ST III where the Klingon and Vulcan ambassadors are debating before the assembly about Kirk) and there are times with the President takes direct action on behalf of the entire Federation on his own authority (ST VI where the President decrees that he is not above the law and Kirk will stand trial).

There is also the Prime Directive, which still applies to member worlds, preventing the Federation from taking a hand in any "purely internal" issue.

So while I am sure there is a bureucracy that has to make a lot of decisions, it seems like there are many levels of control, from internal, to law enforcement, to parliamentary, to executive.

But at any rate, since there is a supreme executive with the authority to take action on behalf of the entire Federation (as there clearly is in ST VI) then a West Wing type show would work, which was Tacky's point.

Also, since what we DO know about how the UFP works would fill a teacup, you could do such a show without a lot of fact-checking to make sure you arent violating the canon.

Chuck


----------



## Ranger REG (May 22, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Then again, since we haven't ever gotten a close look at exactly how the UFP *is* run, we could get all sorts of things, which is what would make me want to see it.



While this may be non-canon, a LUG game product titled, _The Price of Freedom: The United Federation of Planets Sourcebook,_ might give you some understanding of its bureaucracy.

-- still a devoted LUGTrek fan.


----------



## wingsandsword (May 22, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> -- still a devoted LUGTrek fan.



*looks happily at shelf full of LUGTrek materials*

Y'know, it's a real shame they folded when they did.  That's only one of two non-d20 games I have any actual interest in running (New WoD being the other), and I think that system works very well for Star Trek.

With no new canonical trek due out for anywhere from a few years to a decade, it's the best time possible for RPG companies and reference manual makers, as they can get well underway and make plenty of books without having to worry about next week's episode completely contradicting everything you just wrote.  Too bad Decipher is treating its Trek RPG like a obstacle of contractual obligations, just like UPN treated Enterprise.  Maybe we'll see an updated Star Trek Encyclopedia or Star Trek Chronology in the coming years, who knows.


----------



## Vigilance (May 23, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> While this may be non-canon, a LUG game product titled, _The Price of Freedom: The United Federation of Planets Sourcebook,_ might give you some understanding of its bureaucracy.
> 
> -- still a devoted LUGTrek fan.




I have a lot of the LUG Star Trek books myself, I'll look for that particular one.

I just firmly believe there are interesting stories to tell in the Alpha Quadrant in the TNG era and don't know why Bermaga kept telling us we needed something "different".

Never mind that their definition of "different" was TNG in a different place (Voyager) or time (Ent). 

Its really astonishing how much better Ent Season 4 was, when they actually started to show how the UFP came to be was. 

Chuck


----------



## Ranger REG (May 23, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Its really astonishing how much better Ent Season 4 was, when they actually started to show how the UFP came to be was.



Just so that no one forget... credit should be given to Manny Coto with writers Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens (except for the series finale episode, which are written by B&B).

Now I can't wait for _Enterprise: Season 4_ DVD set to hit the store shelves.


----------



## Vigilance (May 23, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Just so that no one forget... credit should be given to Manny Coto with writers Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens (except for the series finale episode, which are written by B&B).
> 
> Now I can't wait for _Enterprise: Season 4_ DVD set to hit the store shelves.




Noooo remember, according to Berman Season 4 was NOT the "Manny Coto" show, he and Braga were INTIMATELY involved in Season 4 just as much as they had been with Seasons 1-3.

The fact that it was better after Manny Coto took over and hired a couple of writers who actually KNEW their trek was pure coincidence


----------



## Ranger REG (May 23, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Noooo remember, according to Berman Season 4 was NOT the "Manny Coto" show, he and Braga were INTIMATELY involved in Season 4 just as much as they had been with Seasons 1-3.



*blows raspberry*   

What a frickin' liar. I mean Berman, not you.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 23, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I hope "take a long break" is your code words for "resign and never set foot in California ever again."




Or possibly Live Long and Prosper's evil twin: Drop Dead and Immediately Decay. (Accompanied with the LL&P hand gesture inverted.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The one time we see Starfleet just take over and start policing everywhere was in DS9 "Paradise Lost", where a rogue Admiral tries to stage a coup, overthrow the President and rule the Federation by martial law.  Note that this almost starts a civil war as direct day-to-day Starfleet policing was seen by the citizens of Earth as creating a police state, and Starfleet directly ruling was seen as a blatant power grab by many (those who supported the coup were given misinformation that it was to protect Earth and Starfleet from Changeling infiltrators).




I haven't seen this episode, I'm sure I'd enjoy it.


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There is also the Prime Directive, which still applies to member worlds, preventing the Federation from taking a hand in any "purely internal" issue.




The Prime Directive is not to interfere with the development of pre-Warp civilisations, how can that apply to member worlds?   In any case it doesn't apply to humans (ie Earth).


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The Prime Directive is not to interfere with the development of pre-Warp civilisations, how can that apply to member worlds?   In any case it doesn't apply to humans (ie Earth).




Well, they haven't been terribly consistent with what the PD really says.  But I concur - the real Prim Directive is to not interfere with less advanced civilizations.   Generally, that's judged to be pre-warp civilizations.  It is supposed that anyone who can develop warp technology is grown-up enough to deal with on an even keel.

The Federation does also have a policy of not interfering in purely internal matters of their members.  They often even try to keep hands off non-members, but the Klingons made it impossible for the Feds stay out of the way.


----------



## Vigilance (May 23, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The Prime Directive is not to interfere with the development of pre-Warp civilisations, how can that apply to member worlds?   In any case it doesn't apply to humans (ie Earth).






> This policy of non-interference prevents Starfleet from influencing the normal development of any civilization, particularly those that are pre-warp drive.




^That is from Star Trek's official website, which matches how I have seen the PD used. It is not *just* for pre-warp civilizations, but also a way to ensure the internal sovereignty of all worlds, including member worlds. 



> During the brutal Cardassian occupation of Bajor in the early 24th century, the Federation refused to act on the grounds that the occupation was an internal matter of the Cardassian government and to help the Bajorans would violate the Prime Directive.




^And here is an example of this application of the Prime Directive from the wikipedia entry for the Prime Directive. Both the Cardassians and the Bajorans were warp-capable and many in the Federation clearly had a sympathy for the Bajorans but Starfleet did not step in.

Not only did the Bajorans have warp drive of their own, but several members of their species (Ensign Ro mentions the "other Bajorans in Star Fleet") were even members of Star Fleet. Jean-Luc Picard was clearly an admirer of their culture and an advocate for the Federation to act, yet they did not. 



> By the 24th century the Federation had begun applying the Prime Directive to warp-capable species, refusing to interfere in internal matters such as the Klingon Civil War.




^And here is an example from TNG of the Prime Directive applying to two warp-capable factions of the SAME species (the Klingon civil war). Even though Picard and Star Fleet wanted Gowron to win and not the Duras Sisters, they would not interfere.


----------



## Orius (May 24, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is supposed that anyone who can develop warp technology is grown-up enough to deal with on an even keel.




I think it's tied in with the concept of "cultural contamination" and such. A pre-warp civilization, might not be philosophically ready to accept the existance of other intelligent life forms.  A species that can develop warp flight however, will eventually (and probably quickly) learn they're not alone in the universe.    There's no need to conceal your existance from them at that point.


----------

