Star Trek's Vision

By Christian Höhne Sparborth
Posted at July 27, 1999 - 5:00 AM GMT

Welcome to a new edition of the Trek Nation mailbag! As we're already a day late, let's quickly dive into your mails!

Voyager's Future

We're still receiving a surprising amount of mail about the whole Brannon Braga / Ron Moore thing, combined with some very interesting thoughts on where Voyager will be heading over the next few years.

From: Anthony Hetherington
Subject: Berman, Braga and The Franchise's Future

With all the hoopla over Braga and Berman recently, and that these boys are the Devil and the anti-Christ, etc, etc, because of some very shaky *perceptions.* There is no concrete proof that either have done anything actually lewd or disgusting (unless you consider the alleged mistreatment of Ron Moore to be so). The difference, I think, behind peoples' feelings toward these two is that they are not Gene Roddenberry, and do not pretend to be. Frankly, I think it comes down to personal taste, that's why these two have been slaughtered on-line. People talk about quality of product, etc, but what they conveniently forget is that the Great Bird of the Galaxy actually presided over what fans and critics alike feel are TNG's worst seasons (1st and 2nd).

As for mistreatment, check this out ( from Final Frontiers website): "The Motion Picture writer Harold Livingston quit the production three times over intense conflicts with Gene Roddenberry. Harold Livingston: "I just didn't think that Gene was a good writer. He, for his part, I'm sure, considered me a total interloper.".

Dennis Clark was hired as a new writer in Livingston's absence the first time he quit. Dennis Clark: "(Roddenberry) makes very bad mistakes with the people that work with him. He alienates them. I was always a Trekkie. I would have been very proud to have my name on the first 'Star Trek' movie."

Dennis Clark: "Gene didn't want (Nimoy and Shatner's) input. He didn't want me to have their input. He didn't even like (director) Bob Wise's input. I wish I could tell you more, but my point of view is very biased and it's a part of my life I don't even like to think about." Clark stayed for only three months and Livingston was asked back by Paramount.

Leonard Nimoy: "There was no indication of where Spock would fit into the bigger picture. I took it as Gene really being lost on that issue. He was just farting around, trying to shoehorn the character into the basic framework of his existing screenplay."

I think people should be careful before pronouncing the death of the franchise based on the alleged actions of Braga, and believing (and saying) that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if Roddenberry was here. News flash: TREK was notorious for it, and it usually stemmed from GR himself. But, it's all lies, all lies. Has to be. No other possibility.

"When Roddenberry didn't get script credit for The Motion Picture, he protested and it almost went to arbitration by the Writer's Guild. Harold Livingston: "I guess (Roddenberry) decided to withdraw (the protest) and assume this injured pose. But he would have lost the arbitration because he didn't write any script. All he did was rewrite, patch up, fool around and screw everything up.""

Gene Roddenberry's -how shall I put it- difficulties in working with other people are indeed been well documented. The difference between Berman/Braga and Roddenberry is presumably that everyone always saw Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek as being one and the same thing, which is why it was hard to criticize Gene. On the other hand, many people seem to believe that Rick Berman is bad for the franchise, which is why they use every argument possible to attack Berman.

Personally I feel Rick Berman is someone who can't be thanked enough for saving Star Trek as a television series, and creating gems such as Deep Space Nine.

From: Patrick O'Sullivan
Subject: An evolved humanity in outer space:

When pronouncing sentence over the current TREK administration, please consider the following about this whole 'what is Trek?' scenario:

"Harve Bennett: "What I couldn't understand was Gene's concept of Star Trek. I was fresh from seeing seventy-nine episodes, and I thought I knew what Star Trek was in its original form . . . .'Star Trek,' he said, 'is not a paramilitary show.' That's not true. 'Star Trek,' in his words from the sixties, 'is Horatio Hornblower.' That's a paramilitary show to me. The analogy between the United States Navy or any navy and Star Trek is so preeminent that you can't possibly miss it. I mean, why then are we dealing with 'admirals' and 'captains,' 'commanders', 'lieutenants' and so forth? The Enterprise is simply a naval vessel at sea, in space. 'There was never', he said, 'violence and conflict in the twenty-third century.' Well how do you deal with that when you are fresh from seeing the episodes where there was a great deal of violence? There were traditional roustabout fights; there were barroom brawls; there was nerve pinching; there was exotic weaponry. There were always people doing bad things to people, very bad things to people."

Harve Bennett: "Suddenly I saw the seeds of what had bored me in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It seemed as though Gene, in his statesmanlike personal growth, had now begun confusing his own idealism - which was wonderful, about a peaceful future and man's ability to grow in the years ahead - with Star Trek.""

I do sometimes wonder what would have happened to Star Trek if Gene Roddenberry would have remained in full control over all parts of the franchise - including all the movies and all seven seasons of the Next Generation. How would Star Trek have looked then? Do let us know!

From: Jim McCain
Subject: Farewell to Ron Moore

I find the supposed farewell to Ron Moore by a former colleague to ring hollow. First there is no name for this person and the style of the letter seems more fannish than profesional. It praises Moore and then says that fans are disallusioned with the quality of the show. That is contradictory. All in all I think the letter is nothing more than a fake to have something to place on this web site. Voyagers quality improved this last season and DS9 has always had high quality.

Why is that contradictory? Ron Moore joined Voyager after the fifth season, so he had no effect on the quality of the show before that. Many fans are indeed disillusioned with the show, and were hoping Ron Moore could improve it.

Unfortunately I can not offer you any proof of the letter's validity - for obvious reasons, the writer did not want his/her name to be published next to the piece, as the higher-ups at Paramount wouldn't exactly like that. I can say that several people 'in the know' confirmed the validity of the letter, but, unfortunately, I cannot offer you any hard evidence.

From: Monica
Subject: Gosh I hope Braga and Berman arent that bad

To whom it may concern,

Very interesting articles on the future of ST. Julia Houston, Jim Wright and Heather Jarmon all have very insightful comments.

I just hope that Voyager gets a chance to shine a bit. Even if TPTB don't invest as much of their efforts into it, Voyager deserves to be treated like a treasure that it is.

Let's hope for a great Season Six

From: Kelly
Subject: Voyager

To: cian devane [From last week's mailbag]

The question isn't why is Rodenberry's vision "being thrown out the window in favor of good ratings and demographics" . The question is why is the vision being thrown out for BAD ratings and demographics. Looking through studio execs green colored glasses, Next Gen. was real popular, big ratings, big profits. Berman and company wanted to try something new on DS-9. Admirably the studio let them try it. DS-9 didn't go over as well. Not a bad show but - no big ratings - no big money. Berman and company were given a second shot with Voyager. Still no big ratings, still no big money. Next Gen movies not doing as well. You would think by now they would be figuring they should go back to the Roddenberry formula or whatever. Instead, Berman and Braga are getting another shot.

Isn't it true that the Next Generation didn't get really popular until after the first two seasons? Personally I do believe Deep Space Nine was a success, and the reason why I still have trust in Berman.

From: Scott Suton
Subject: voyager's future

It seems to me the smartest thing to do would be to get Voyager back to the Alpha Quadrant and let stories develop that would develop on a new series. The characters on Voyager are good, solid characters. I think the writers need to change their approach to storylines.

Voyager Cancellation

Even this week we still got two mails about the Voyager cancellation rumours:

From: Wildstar
Subject: I believe Voyager getting cancelled early would not be good and may make a bad situation worse.

I agree with many fans in saying that Voyager had extreme problems in terms of writing, character development, etc. early on, but a great deal of restructuring has been done that has significantly improved the show. There is an increase in the number of consistently good individual episodes. There is more attention paid now to character development, character interaction, back stories related to the ship and crew members, and better attention paid to subtle details.

I believe many Trek fans allowed themselves to become at least somewhat indifferent about Voyager's future when the show failed to live up to a lot of expectations. However, now that improvements have been made and a significant amount of quality writing has been pumped into it, it seems that a lot of those same Trek fans who turned a blind eye to Voyager before are resistent to give credit to the positive changes or to admit that there is some hope for the show's survival.

Some may feel that my position is harsh, but I've seen this kind of attitude displayed by thousands of Trek fans at several conventions throughout the southeastern U.S. The con fans in question regularly joke about Voyager and are very quick to point out a huge number of flaws while paying little to no attention to the improvements. A lot of the best episodes to date, such as "The Year of Hell," are completely ignored. A good example of con fan attitudes about the show was discovered by me when I discussed Voyager with a group at this year's Dragon*Con in Atlanta, Georgia. None of them had even seen the really good episodes of the fourth and fifth seasons. They still had their minds stuck in seasons one through three and couldn't fathom the show ever getting better.

The reason why I think cancelling Voyager with season six will make a bad situation worse is because if anything like this ever happens again with another Star Trek series, then an early Voyager cancellation will give Paramount a precedent to pull the plug on that future show even sooner than they are considering doing now. Early cancellation could lay down a virtual path marked with the message, "A Star Trek series will be tried, will succeed from the beginning, and will continue succeeding perpetually or Paramount will cancel it as soon as possible with no chances given for improvement."

Also, a very significant point to consider here is what would have happened if cancellation had been done early in the scheme of things with Star Trek: The Next Generation? The last statement may have sparked off a few laughs because so many people forget about history. ST:TNG was in danger of failing in the ratings in its first and second seasons. Of course, the Star Trek crew kept tinkering with it and making improvements until they got it right for the majority of fans, and then we had the tremendous hit. True, it has taken much longer to get the kinks worked out of Voyager, but I think there's another question that begs for an answer: Is Star Trek really worth the extra effort? In answer to it, YES, I very much think it is worth the effort to improve Voyager and continue with it for the sake of the future health of the franchise.

Well, that's my two cents worth. If I offended anyone who doesn't see where I'm coming from, then that's just sad because my mind is on the idea of preservation of Trek in the most positive manner possible. I am a die-hard Trek fan, and I seriously hope that discussing these views here will provoke other fans to try to objectively think about the points I brought up. Peace.

The difference here is that Voyager is not early in the series - six seasons is a long and respectable time for any show. It is highly doubtful that Voyager would get more than seven seasons, so we would only miss one year. Voyager has indeed improved, but I wouldn't nearly give it the classical status Deep Space Nine or the Next Generation achieved.

From: Lisa Browning
Subject: Cancellation of Voyager

I do not agree that canceling the show would be "good for Star Trek". While Voyager may be considered "beyond saving" by some, what kind of message does this send about the overall health of the Star Trek franchise? DS9 never had overwhelming ratings in syndication, and the gross from the most recent movie, "Insurrection" was significantly down from "First Contact". Canceling Voyager would only add to an increasing idea that Star Trek is dying, and might even make TPTB less likely to invest in a new project.

I also feel it is not entirely fair to blame Voyager for poor ratings. UPN is still not in all of the viewing markets after several years as a fledgling network. Most of its shows are canceled after a year on the air. The few exceptions, Voyager included, should be kept, not ditched, if there is any hope that UPN will continue as a network. Despite its low ratings, Voyager has consistently been the highest rated show that UPN has. With DS9 off the air, and Babylon 5's "Crusade" being sidelined after only a few episodes, Voyager has the potential to gain more of an audience this year, but it will need the support of UPN to do so. While speculation about cancellation has been put off until the end of this year, this still does not bode well for the show. Voyager will not miraculously gain more viewers unless UPN makes a concerted effort to attract them. A "wait and see" policy will be a self-fulfilling prophecy for Voyager.

A possible cancellation for Voyager would certainly send a bad message if this would mean the end of Star Trek - but what if we don't use the term 'cancellation' and instead think of it as making way for a great new Trek series? Personally I wouldn't object to that.

Subspace Buzz

Our regularly scheduled collection of mails on a variety of subjects.

From: Jonathan Geehan
Subject: Something must be done

I don't know enough about the internet to start my own save Star Trek site, but something must be done. Fans must organize letter writing campaigns to let Paramount and Rick Berman that they're killing Star Trek, and the franchise. It needs a long break so fans will be in anticipation of the next new Trek. Please e-mail me back, ASAP!

The best advise I can give you would be to either learn how to create your own web site, or to join the already existing Save Star Trek campaign. I personally don't agree with them, but you might want to join their campaign.

From: 'Rick Berman'
Subject: news

hello great sight you hav we all reed it her at startrek.

i wanna share som exlscusive inside scoop on startrek episodes with you for your sight. dont say you got the from me. the new startrek will be with the enteprise-G, togehter with captain Kirk. we will have the Klingons to. if you have any questions mail me!!!!

Hey Rick, nice to see you also read TrekToday. Funny you're sending this from an e-mail address in Italy, though - I didn't know you were having a holiday at the moment, right in the middle of production for Voyager's sixth season...

'The Franchise's Future'

Julia Houston wrote last week's installment of our 'The Franchise's Future' series of articles, which of course we also received several interesting mails about:

From: Warren V. Wind
Subject: Julia Houston-The Franchise's Future

Well it's about time someone stepped up and said something brutally honest about the future of Star Trek. Regardless of supposed nobility of the Roddenberry vision of the future, it all comes down to making money and profit!!! I salute Julia Houston's honesty.

Oh, thanks very much. It's kind of funny that even on the show, though they pretend they don't use money anymore, they've imported the old-fashioned barter system and that whole "gold-pressed latinum" thing. Even in fiction, let's be frank, money makes the galaxy go around!

From: Doug G.
Subject: (No Subject)

I think we're all missing the starship here. Star Trek, when it's good, is driven by powerful scripts. Everyone said you could never replace Kirk, Spock et al. But the following three series and last two feature films proves otherwise. Here's the plan. Set a series in the Star Trek universe on any ship, pick one, Enterprise, Voyager, Defiant, Excalibur (for all you New Frontier novel fans) and run the run in perpetuity. If actors want to leave, replace them, if then want to come back, bring'em back. Star Trek works best when the characters are boldy going where no one has gone before. It's the format and writing that make good Star Trek. Sure the characters are memorable, but that's due to good actors. Look at the show Law and Order over the years they've replaced every major character and they're still going strong. So wether the next series is Flight Academy, or Next Generation 2, The Return of Voyager or Tales of the Imperial Klingon Defense Force. Put the characters on a ship and let the good writers do their stuff. IMHO :-)

I agree with everything you say. I just wish the people who made TV and movies would realize that while we will flock to show to see a star or special effects, what we really want to see is the star and the special effects in a good story!

Our Future Goal

Tamara Thomas' Our Future Goal article drew in one rather long mail, and an even longer response from Tamara herself:

From: Mark
Subject: Comment on a TrekNatin article

I wanted to comment on Tamara Thomas' article (Our Future Goal). I think it's unlikely that humankind will ever adopt Federation ideas and goals. Thomas makes reference to the technological leaps during World War Two. Surely that disproves her point. People did indeed work together in the pursuit of one goal during WW2, and many scientific advances were made, but that was purely because the human race had a common enemy to fight. This shows that people can only work together when their single goal is violence.

The same is true of Trek. When they thought they were alone in space, the humans were constantly at war. When they developed warp travel, they picked fights with every race they found instead; the Klingons, then the Romulans, then the Dominion, then Species 8472. As Trek episodes like "In the Flesh" and "What you Leave Behind" show, all of these conflicts were based on a misunderstanding of cultures. The Federation used the pretence of peace and relied on violent instincts to solve their problems when they could not communicate. If you still don't belive me, ask yourself; where was the respect for cultures and non-violent solutions in the Voyager episode "Macrocosm"? Or "Nemesis"? Or the entire series of TOS? Or the entire Dominion War?

I would love it if one day the world woke up and said in unison "Let's adopt a Federation society". But it will never happen. We already have the Federation technology. A Dutch company recently invented a rudimentary Holodeck. A Canadian company invented a working Tricorder for the study of Ecosystems. The modern mobile phone is similar to Kirk's communicator. Philips invented the Padd in 1991. Scientists have designed a space shuttle that is powered by antimatter, and other scientists have designed a ship that travels by folding the space around it (partially inspired by warp travel)!

If we have the Federation technology, why aren't we using it? The human race is too busy killing each other to worry about boldly going anywhere. Why make the antimatter ship when we can get ten nuclear warheads for the same price [rhetorical]? It's a sad fact, but humans are innately violent. Technology and contact with aliens is not enough to over-write centuries of genetic programming. The ambivalent values of the 24th century Federation prove this as well as real life could ever prove it.

Firstly, thank you for commenting on my article. Your arguments were interesting and persuasive. I certainly can't dismiss Scott's arguments easily. Our society's use of violence as a solution to resolving cultural differences has been a feature of our society and unfortunately continues to be a terrible attribute of our culture. Scott's references to the ambivilant nature of 24th century federation society also cannot be dismissed. A prime example of this is Star Trek: Insurrection where the Federation was willing to forgo its principles forcibly relocate another society in the name of advancement.

Where I can reply to Scott's arguments is his assertion that violence is instinctual to the human race and that we are genetically programmed to react to problem situations in a violent manner. I cannot believe that this is true. I know that I solve problems and deal with cultural differences with out the use of violence. If violence was genetically programmed then how is has the human race managed to exist this long? If the use of violence was instinctual our society would have been all over 30 years ago during the cold war. What kept those nations from summarily destroying each other? I believe that some of us learned that violence is not the solution to our problems. If the use of violence was imbedded in our genetic makeup we would have never learned that lesson.

The captains in Star Trek always seem to give the peaceful solution a go before resulting to violence. The use of violence seems to be used as the last resort and it is as a direct result of extreme provocation. For example, on many occasions Captain Janeway has used negotiation and peaceful solutions to resolve conflicts. She is always keen to learn about new cultures and become friends with them.

The examples of the world achieving aspects of Federation technology are examples of our ability to go forward with out a common enemy. The computer age is partly the result of commercial competition.

My argument is that a focus on space exploration and contact with other cultures may help us solve our current problems by providing us a worthy and peaceful goal to pursue rather than floundering around. I believe this can be achieved by a groundswell of support for science and a common belief in the respect for others.

Scott may be right and my idealism and belief in the humanity may be displaced. However, ideals are the catalyst for change and you never know, it may happen.

'A Take On Trek'

Fred Shedian's A Take On Trek column seems to inspire a lot of people to write in. Take a look at the mails we got about his 'Back to Basics' column, and Fred's responses to the mails:

From: Jim Zimmerman
Subject: Re Fred's Column, 7/19/199

"interesting, but boring." Huh?

Although I don't agree with Fred in his criticism of DS9 or the Dominion War(some of the best Trek ever, IMO), I can certainly support his suggestion of an exploration theme for the next show. Furthermore, I also agree that it should take place on an Enterprise and be in the future (uh, future of TNG, DS9 & Voyager, I mean. I can never remember what century it is). Rather than the far future, however, I'd prefer to see it in a near future of maybe ten years or so.

That leaves the door open for some guest appearances by old friends.

In regard to the Dominion War, as I like to say, disagreement is another advantage to not being a member of the Borg Collective. I believe the next series needs to be set in a new time. We have really beaten the 24th Century to death with TNG, DS9, and VOY. But ten years in the future, with the correct writing, could be a good substitute.

From: Frank McCormick
Subject: Regarding "A Take On Trek"

I must say I agree with many points contained in Fred Sheridan's "A Take On Trek." I look forward to future columns. But there are some things I do not agree with.

I may just be an oversensitive teen and I apologize if I misinterpreted, but Mr. Sheridan seems to be looking down on younger fans. Just because we are young and didn't go through the 70s and most of the 80s with no Trek, we are the reason that Star Trek's message have been lost. I admit, I like Borg attacks and Dominion battles. So sue me. However, what I, and most younger Trekkers I know, love is good storytelling and thought-provoking ideas. We are not TOTALLY hormone driven troglodytes who only want Star Wars-esque battles and fighting! (Although I take exception to his seeming contempt of Star Wars as well, but that's a whole other argument and one that is all to familiar amongst Trek fans who like SW and those that sneer at it.) All the CGI in the universe cannot make up for bad writing and a shallow idea pool.

I also have a more general gripe with his use of the whole "Roddenberry's vision is being lost" statement. Gene Roddenberry was a great man who should be honored for what he did and what he started. But sometimes it seems like he and his vision are far too lionized. The answer to Star Trek's problems should not be to backtrack and just redo TOS in the 25th century. Star Trek is about looking ahead, new ideas, evolution. Not retreating back to old, "safe" ideas the minute things do not go our way. What does not change, decays and dies. Roddenberry's vision should be the solid foundation upon which new structures (like war and the "dark" feel of DS9) can be built.

But, as I said, I agree with a lot that he said. And I wholeheartedly agree with his closing thought. Seeing the Enterprise NCC-1701-G,H, I,J,.... would be GREAT!

I'm glad you like the column. I have nothing against younger Trek viewers, just believe that a select few have the wrong impression of what the show is really about. I also agree that Trek should evolve, using Roddenberry's teaching as a platform. I just don't think it's been done in the proper way. Finally, who knows, maybe an NCC-1701-Y?

From: Kevin Watts
Subject: The Future of Trek

Fred Shedian~

You seem intent on critisizing New Trek. Well, I love it. For example, take the Dominion War. You say that "Ratings have been dropping". Well if people don't want to watch, fine. I like it. You also say it is only about action scenes and CGI. I don't watch Trek for action, I use Jackie Chan. You think it's pointless. I see one constant lesson in all of the Dominion Arc. War is Bad, but through it all we see hope, heroism and faith. If the Dominion War spoiled Trek, I wouldn't watch it. I love Trek. So quite dissing it.

Bye the way a "Dawson's Trek" show would really suck.

First, let me say that I honestly enjoyed DS9 and like Voyager. With that in mind, I think a lot of people liked the Dominion a point. However, I simply don't think it was handled well and was highly overdone. I'm glad we agree on "Dawson's Trek."

From: Daniel Nicholls
Subject: what is going on here?

I just finished reading Fred Shedian's 'Take on Trek' and have to declare that he is not a fan 'just like me'. As a matter of fact, I don't believe he is a fan of anything more than The Original Series. Don't get me wrong, Fred, I love TOS as well, but are you honestly suggesting that Deep Space Nine would have been better if it had tried to be a clone of that show, rather than breaking new ground as it did? The Original Series wasn't JUST about taking us to fantastic new worlds, it was MORE about making statements about the human condition through science fiction analogy. And that is something Deep Space Nine did fantastically, and episodes like 'Rocks & Shoals', 'Far Beyond the Stars' and 'Tacking into the Wind' did this better than ANY original series episode, and these are all epsides that simply could not have been done without the War as a backdrop. War is PART of the human condition. To ignore it (which TOS never did, ever seen 'Errand of Mercy', for starters?) is to ignore history.

I honestly laughed out loud when you blamed the Dominion war for Trek's failing ratings. Don't you mean Deep Space Nine? Hang on, that was the number one syndicated show in it's genre wasn't it? So what exactly are you talking about? I'd like to remind you of a different show, which got ratings so bad it was cancelled after three seasons. Aired in the sixties? Sound familiar? Are you saying that ratings determine the quality of a show? How about you try WATCHING Deep Space Nine and taking it on it's own merits? I don't mean to sound venomous, Fred, there were large parts of your column that I really agreed with, and you are a fine writer, but I am forced to say that I agree UTTERLY with Paramount's decision to do something DIFFERENT with Voyager and Deep Space Nine. During the first season of TNG, Gene Roddenberry was adamant that the show stand on it's own two legs, without having to constantly make references to the Original Series, and that's what made the show such a success, it was INTERNALLY good, rather than just riding on the original's coattails. I imagine if you were there you'd want to write in a gag for each episode where they would somehow mention the original series crew or thier exploits? This would be a recipe for disaster, as is the notion of trying to use the same concept over and over. It was original in the sixties. Let it be, please. Thank you Rick Berman (I'd like to remind everyone: a close friend of Gene's. Were we?) for having the guts to do something original rather than just trying to duplicate TOS.

Sorry for going on so long, Fred, but it really makes me retch when I hear yet another person compare the drama of Star Trek to the Special Effects of Star Wars (or Starship Troopers). Even a cursory observation of the two franchises reveals such an observation to be deeply flawed. Thanks for your time, looking forward to your next column.

I am a fan of all of the shows. I am not suggesting any clones, but think that the principles that made the franchise famous should be kept to. Since they haven't, rating have dropped. I believe that shows something. I agree that DS9 (and VOY) transmit messages. Also, Paramount had little to do with the concept for the new shows. They simply went with the best suggestions they were offered. I think Rick Berman is a good writer and I have to say I enjoy DS9 and VOY very much. Glad you enjoyed at least a bit of the column. Sorry to make you retch.

From: Phillip Sheath
Subject: HMMM

I recently read Fred Shedians article on the Sar Trek Series V and i must disagree with some of his opinions.

I don't believe the Dominion War to have made Trek more dark. One thing about Trek is that it depicts mostly realistic events in the future, something the Dominion War has strengthened. War is realistic. And not every episode of DS9 was about the War, neither is every Voyager episode about the Borg. (Although Voyager is, to an extent, more 'battle hungry' than previous series')

I agree with Mr Shedians opinion that Star Trek has 'wandered' from Gene Roddenberry's vision, but not to a massive extent and i also agree that Trek is about hope.

And about Trek V, i think we should all sit back enjoy the ride. Whatever Braga and Berman pull out ought to be good.

I am glad we agree on several points. I still believe that the Dominion War, in a good move or not so good move, took away a lot of the innocence the show had. At this stage, I can't tell you if that's a positive or negative thing. Yes, Voyager does seem to love fighting and CGI. I don't think Trek is too far away from Roddenberry's vision, but just enough to make an impact.

Find more episode info in the Episode Guide.

Christian Höhne Sparborth is webmaster of the Trek Nation.