RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Content filter

Want to find something specific?

Filter content by category

Filter content by date

Moore: Trek’s Future

Posted by T'Bonz - 04/02/14 at 09:02 am


Share |

MooreTrek020414

Star Trek Writer/Producer Ronald D. Moore shared his opinion regarding the future of the Star Trek franchise.

According to Moore, Trek rightly belongs on television.

“I think [Trek's] home and its heart is really in television,” Moore said, when asked about Star Trek while promoting his latest project, Helix. “That’s really what Star Trek is – the core concept is really a TV show.”

Moore has nothing against Star Trek on the big screen though; he just believes that Star Trek would be better served on television. “I think the features are good and I really admire what J.J. Abrams has done with the last two films, he said; I think it’s great; but the heart and soul of that franchise demands a return to television.”

“The kinds of stories that you’ll tell in the features space are not the kinds of stories that made that show so popular. The features all have to be action-oriented.

“They all have to have enormous stakes – the Earth or the Federation or the universe has to be in jeopardy – and the features always have to surround the Captain… and maybe one other character.

“The TV shows were morality plays; they were more thematic; they were examining society in different ways. Sometimes the stakes were just one crew member’s life; sometimes the stakes were just one alien world or the Enterprise.

“The TV show is really what Star Trek is to me. I think the features are great, but I think it has to return to TV if it’s going to remain an ongoing franchise.”

If Trek was to return to television, Moore would like to be part of it. “I’d love to do Star Trek again, in all honesty,” he said.

Source: Digital Spy

Tags:

  • dantrek

    He is so spot on, I do wish they would return to TV and Ron Moore would be a part of it. The movies are fun and it was nice to see a return of Kirk and Spock, but hes right, where do you go from there in the movies?

  • Guest

    What does “literally ripped off” mean? Was there some literal ripping involved?

    Drawing on sources may be being unoriginal, but it is not the same thing as plagiarism. Whether BSG was plagiarized is a matter for the courts (which the suit did not reach), but it was still undeniable an opportunistic product designed to exploit spillover public interest generated by Star Wars, and created by a man who rarely did anything other than piggyback on the popularity of established properties.

  • Guest

    Just to be clear, you cannot plagiarize, say, King Arthur, because nobody owns him. Also, was it Lucas who originated the suit or was it Fox?

  • Blue Thunder

    It was George Lucas who originated the suit. That certainly showed his hypocritic mentality. Lucas may have created a classic, but he sure as hell didn’t create the proverbial ‘greatest science fiction film of all time’.

  • Blue Thunder

    Technically, it was more like he remade and bastardized the most critically acclaimed science fiction series of all time.

    Bottom line is this. Some like the old series. Some like the new.

    Personally, I like the old, and I’ll watch that over the remake anytime of the week.

  • Blue Thunder

    I would hardly call Starship Farragut and Star Trek Continues good fan productions. Given the people behind those two fan films, and their mentalities, they have tarnished the integrity and legacy of Star Trek.

  • Blue Thunder

    Kang, what nevillross is trying to explain does make sense. Unfortunately, in the Star Trek fan realm, there are two polarized factions who are for the new films and those who are not. The old days of Star Trek are gone. Like the theme in the late Sam Peckinpah’s 1969 classic western(the best western ever made)The Wild Bunch, times have changed for those who are unchanged.

    To quote Jim Kirk in Star Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country, “People can be frightened of change.” Judging by the ‘colorful remarks and metaphors’ that nevilleross has described being used by(for lack of a better description)purist fans, it is obvious that they are frightened by the change in the Star Trek realm.

    Star Trek was mishandled in the gloomier ’90′s and, as Leonard Nimoy had described, it had run its course. Now, it has been given new life in its ressurrection.

    Or in this case, reincarnation.

    One of the themes about Star Trek was that change is the essential process of all things. That point was proven quite successfully in the 2009 film and its 2013 sequel.

    However, it is up to the fans on whether they want to embrace the change or not.

  • Guest

    Remade, nominally, but really he produced a different series that happens to share the name of a previous series. In fact, why they even need to be discussed in relation to each other is a minor mystery to me.

  • trekfan

    Every new Trek incarnation represented a certain change. Change is not really an issue. But I’m not sure if what we now have in the form of those movies is really a change or just a recycling business, and lately a shameless rehash (actually, I’m pretty sure it’s the latter). I don’t exactly regard some hacks reinventing the wheel as change, at least not a positive one.

  • nevilleross

    I have nothing against fan productions, but for me the only good ones are Star Trek Phase II and the Scottish one which I forget the name of. And no, CBS isn’t going to do that-those productions aren’t as professional as a standard TV show is. Please try and deal with reality instead of delving into fantasy about TV production.

  • Tossaway

    The *reality* is there IS NO PROFESSIONAL SHOW. How’s that for reality? On the other hand, Star Trek Phase II is being made using actual industry professionals who have worked on professional Star Trek, both television and movie. How’s *that* for reality?

  • Tossaway

    They are better than others, and Star Trek Phase II and Continues have both had Trek professional involvement. I lean more towards Phase II myself. One of the problems of a movie productions is that the studio *will* insist on a big space battle, to get their money’s worth. Some of the best Trek didn’t even show a phaser. You will never get “The Measure of a Man” on the big screen, because it doesn’t involve enough explosions, and because the studios won’t take a chance. Explosions mean ticket sales. This is why I have no interest in Star Trek Online- I want to play Cyrano Jones or explore strange new worlds, and the game is more interested in combat. That’s the same mentality that runs the studios.

  • Tossaway

    That Scottish one was Intrepid. It was pretty nice. Of necessity, too many fan productions depend on green screen, and that makes a difference. Since some of the people who actually used the TOS set have also used the Phase II set, and since parts of the Phase II set have actually been used in a professional Trek production, I’d say that is probably the best fan set (and since it now uses real monitors on the bridge instead of static images, it’s actually better in many ways).

  • Blue Thunder

    It’s like what I said earlier. It has to do with the fact that Moore’s version is technically a remake. You have old schoolers who like the original and today’s generation who like the remake.

  • Gust

    So if I were to produce even a single person who is not of “today’s generation,” whatever that might mean, who likes the remake, I would instantly prove you wrong? And if I found someone, anyone, who likes both, would you go insane from the paradox?

  • Guest

    Just reading through your posts here: why exactly is it that, when it comes to Star Trek, people who do not like the new incarnation are to be disparaged as failing to embrace change, whereas when it comes to BSG, they’re preserving some kind of prelapsarian purity against the waves of change? “People can be frightened of chance,” indeed.”People can be frightened of change.”

  • Blue Thunder

    What it means is the following: someone who grew up watching the series in 1978. Unless you can produce such a single person, I can’t really give you an honest answer. No, I wouldn’t go insane from the paradox.

  • Blue Thunder

    Those are some good questions that you pose. However, I believe those answers can be found in that post concerning the two subjects. I can’t explain it any better than that.

  • Blue Thunder

    The Scottish one is Star Trek – Intrepid.

  • Blue Thunder

    While there are some faults, it’s better than Starship farragut and STC.

  • trekfan

    You have some personal issues with those people (jealous? envious?), your assessment is not objective.

  • trekfan

    It’s more authentic than that Abrams’ seizure-inducing lens flare fest.

  • trekfan

    Agreed.

  • nevilleross

    The reality for you and all of the others here bitching about this, maybe. But for a TV audience, critics, and executives at CBS, not even close. It also doesn’t matter how professional the sets are and how many pros from the industry are working on the show, nobody’s going to put Phase II or its contemporaries on CBS, The CW, or Showtime.

  • nevilleross

    It puzzles me that people like you can think that their ‘rational arguments (delusions) are what constitutes the reality of TV show production, or even movie production.

  • nevilleross

    Thanks.

  • Tossaway

    “The reality for you” AN admission that you live in your own reality? I didn’t present Phase II as a professional show. That doesn’t change the fact that, not only are industry professionals working on it, those professionals worked on multiple versions of professional Star Trek. Since there won’t be professional Trek on TV anytime soon, CBS can get the cash cow flowing again by licensing some of these alternatives. Allowing them to make money for CBS will help them become more professional as well.r you

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I did get his point early on, thank you. It doesn’t unfortunately change that he tends to respond to any logical argument or statement of fact with puerile namecalling. The sky is blue. Let’s move on.
    The old days are always gone. This same stupid disagreement has happened over and over again – in ’82 over TWoK, in ’87 over TNG, et cetera, et cetera, and has always had the same result: Star Trek moves forward. This is so head-smackingly obvious that I wonder how it contimues to be a point of contention. However, clearly I’m abnormal. Water is wet; let’s move on.
    I do understand that much of the fandom is polarized along these lines. And I lament that so many insist that everyone belong to one side or the other. I, and many others, do not. Such a shame when everyone doesn’t conveniently fit the pigeon holes, I know.
    I’ve made it quite plain that the 2009 film was a very effective reboot and a much-needed revitalization for the franchise and the fandom alike. This shouldn’t require me to piss on everything that’s come before.
    I’ve also been forthcoming about STiD’s shortcomings as a film, which are already giving Paramount cause to reconsider their commitment to the Star Trek brand. The film is a dog turd with icing on it; screaming at everyone that it’s a moist delicious wedding cake does not make it one. Likewise, declining to take a big bite, make yummy sounds and ask for seconds does not make me a metathesiophobic purist.
    I am saddened to see this relaunch fizzling so soon. I for one welcome the upcoming change in the production and writing staff. Let’s see where this goes.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    It wasn’t four years ago. It sure as hell is now.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Four years ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly. After STiD, it’s a toss-up.

  • @justinlillich

    Agreed, Moore would reinvigorate the series for sure. I’ve been working on a spec script for a pilot that could be right up his alley.

  • Lamont Cranston

    I was born in 1963. I watched the original Battlestar Galactica during its original run. It was crap, but as you no doubt do not remember most people didn’t have too much of a choice of what to watch in the late 70s. No 500 channel cable, no rentable videos. The only reason I watched it, despite the fact that it was crap, was that it was the only new science fiction show on television at the time. I didn’t start watching the Ron Moore version of Galactica until after the 2nd season because I couldn’t understand why someone as talented as Ron Moore was wasting his time on the undeniable crapfest that was the original Battlestar Galactica. I wish I hadn’t waited, what with the Ron Moore version being superior to the original in every way.

  • Fake

    So, apparently it’s not a generational thing. Heck, it’s not surprising that people cling to things from their childhood (I’ve been shocked to hear adults defend Power Rangers, for example), but anyone who dismisses the new Battlestar Galactica due to the fact that it is a remake (albeit a remake that’s very distinct from the thing its remaking — which you would think would be a good thing!) is doing a pretty good impersonation of an ostrich. In fact, the idea is so stupid and shortsighted that it should pretty much rule out any opinion of said person being taken seriously.

  • Blue Thunder

    No, it is not jealously or envy. It is more like an honest business deal gone bad. And it was due to Michael Bednar lying to me(on behalf of Vic Mignogna). At the time, I made some inquiries concerning general episode production information which would have helped in a project that I was working on.

    For reasons unknown, they lied to me and gave me false information.

    I don’t appreciate being lied to, let alone nearly being made a fool of, by a bunch of liars, thieves, crooks, and degenerates. And that is precisely what John Broughton, Michael Bednar, their business partner Vic Mignogna, and the rest of Farragut Films are.

    I was very fortunate and very thankful that both James Cawley and Patty Wright encouraged me to continue pursuing that project and not to give up on it.

    I always be thankful and grateful to James and Patty for having me finish that project through to the end. 110%!

    Does that answer your question as to why I hate Vic Mignogna and his partners at Farragut Films? It should!

  • Blue Thunder

    Honestly, Star Trek-Phase II is a professional series, run by professionals and distributed by professionals. It is for the fans and by the fans(the aforementioned P2 professional staff). It would be awesome if CBS/Paramount would go into an honest partnership with Cawley Entertainment and Retro Film Studios, and bring Phase II into the weekly network television realm.

  • Blue Thunder

    My pleasure, nevilleross.

  • Blue Thunder

    Well, I was born in the early Seventies, and frankly I enjoyed the original and everything about it. As did my late father(who was a school teacher). He even showed the episodes to the World History Class that he taught, concerning ancient religions, societies, their respective histories, and(if the subject covered it – the ancient astronaut theory).

    Ron Moore’s version of BSG was as much of a crapfest as Galactica 1980 was. Both were abominations spawn from poor writing and other rotten elements spawn from the slush pile. Or in this case, turd pile!

  • Blue Thunder

    I’ve seen part of the remake and frankly I did NOT enjoy it or anything about it!

    It was nothing but shit on the television screen.