How did Trek Become Such a Phenomenon?

[Umbran]

So was Star Trek. Specific ideologies were being pushed by the show.

There is a difference between pushing an ideology as part of some fanciful distant future, and saying, "This specific policy, here and now, by your group, is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce." Any show addressing how we do in the next 30-40 years will have to address the policies of today pretty directly.

 

[billd91]

There is a difference between pushing an ideology as part of some fanciful distant future, and saying, "This specific policy, here and now, by your group, is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce." Any show addressing how we do in the next 30-40 years will have to address the policies of today pretty directly.

Isn't the one of the great things about science fiction? To address our current social ills by extrapolating them or their alternatives into some kind of distant future? Cold wars, proxy wars, racism, eugenics, all were big issues in the 1960s or shortly before and all were showcased on Star Trek, sometimes quietly, sometimes obliquely, and sometimes loudly and directly.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't the one of the great things about science fiction? To address our current social ills by extrapolating them or their alternatives into some kind of distant future?

Yes. TV sci-fi (Trek, especially) does make some commentary, but with plausible deniability by shifting to the future, thus making it allegory. But, please remember the original context - we were talking about a show that didn't extrapolate to some distant future - we were talking about one that put some focus on the next 30 to 40 years. This is not distant, and not allegorical. This would not be the morality play commentary we normally see in TV science fiction, but would be direct critical commentary on actions of today.

In terms of controversy, that's a different kettle of fish. What sign do we see that today's networks are willing to step up and make such statements?

 

[Orius]

Star Trek just managed to do something right I guess

What proves DS9 wasn't a deliberate clone to me was that the fiest 3 seasons were episodic where B5 was always serial. Then DS9 switched to being serial (and the show got better by most people's opinion). That switch is when DS9 raised its head, looked at what B5 was doing, and copied it. Until that point, DS9 was being made in its own little idea bubble.

Producer changes I think need to be taken into account too. Michael Pillar left the franchise around the midpoint of Season Three, and Ira Steven Behr took over as exec. So it's possible they might have taken a cue from B5 and started digging into more serial episodes, but the writing staff on DS9 had a lot of fans of TOS and Trek in general, and they were interested in digging into the established universe rather than cranking out a new species every week.

Bottom line is DS9 did it better. Better actors, better characters, better design, better effects, better music, and better TV overall.

Better budget....

Some copying of ideas? More than just a bit. Both have a warrior from an alien culture join the cast (Marcus Cole/Warf). Both have a lesbian scene the same week! (only difference was Ivonova/Talia was subtle, and JMS had had men holding hands with men and women holding hands with women in the background the whole time, on the theory that by 2258, the human race would have grown up a bit). Both had a unique ship with special advantages join the show in season 3 (first of the White Star fleet/Defiant). Both had a major female character recast/replaced (Ivanova for Lockley/the trill woman for another host). And that's off the top of my head.

Some of these are likely coincidences.

Marcus and the White Star were probably part of JMS's long term arc from the start. Worf was pretty much added as a ratings boost, and he wasn't a character from out of the blue, he was one of the most popular TNG characters. The Defiant was added because there was at least a perception that viewers weren't really impressed by the runabouts, and because the ship gave them the freedom to do starship-based episodes. The whole lesbian thing was just fashionable in Hollywood at the time, same week isn't surprisng, it's a sweeps stunt.

And like Umbran said, the Ivanova -> Lockley and Jadzia -> Ezri replacements had nothing to do with the shows' writing, it was because of career choices made by the actresses. Claudia Christian left B5 because of a contract dispute with WB; they way I understand she was offered a movie role, but WB didn't want her doing the movie while she was still under contract for the show or something. Terry Farrell was offered a role on the show Becker during the sixth season of DS9; I always assumed she took the role because DS9 was only going to have 1 more season. Trek is well known as a career killer where actors get typecasted, and she was probably thinking of her career after the show ended.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Better budget....

No doubt.

To be fair, many of the creative staff of DS9 went on to do BSG, which is better than either show and did not have a big budget.

 

[Umbran]

No doubt.

To be fair, many of the creative staff of DS9 went on to do BSG, which is better than either show and did not have a big budget.

For understanding:

Babylon 5 is reported as having a budget of about $800,000 per episode.

DS9 had a bundget of about $1.6 million per episode.

Battlestar Galactica reportedly had a budget of about $1.5 million per episode.

That last is a double-edged sword. There's a decade in between the shows, so inflation takes a chunk of that, but CGI has become massively better and more affordable in that decade. So it is difficult to say how far the budget goes in each case.

As for BSG being "better", I don't know. I couldn't finish watching BSG - it was so unrelentingly grim that I found it implausible and downright unpleasant to watch. Now, for some that is better, but I dont' think we can call it universally so.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For understanding:

Babylon 5 is reported as having a budget of about $800,000 per episode.

DS9 had a bundget of about $1.6 million per episode.

Battlestar Galactica reportedly had a budget of about $1.5 million per episode.

That last is a double-edged sword. There's a decade in between the shows, so inflation takes a chunk of that, but CGI has become massively better and more affordable in that decade. So it is difficult to say how far the budget goes in each case.

As for BSG being "better", I don't know. I couldn't finish watching BSG - it was so unrelentingly grim that I found it implausible and downright unpleasant to watch. Now, for some that is better, but I don't think we can call it universally so.

Don't know where those figures come from, but assuming they're correct, BSG is still a lot cheaper than DS9, inflation-adjusted. And regardless of what they cost, I still think the bottom line is how enjoyable the show was. DS9 got more money because it had an established brand name and production and creative staff, many of whom came over from what was the #1 show on TV at the time. They earned that budget.

As to quality assessment, I think the "IMO" is implied, but you'll find plenty of critical opinions and review aggregators that support BSG. The point here is that the writers and other staff are legitimately good. They've gone on to numerous other worthwhile endeavors as well.

 

[SkidAce]

As for BSG being "better", I don't know. I couldn't finish watching BSG - it was so unrelentingly grim that I found it implausible and downright unpleasant to watch. Now, for some that is better, but I dont' think we can call it universally so.

Truth...

 

[Umbran]

As to quality assessment, I think the "IMO" is implied, but you'll find plenty of critical opinions and review aggregators that support BSG.

That's nice. Of course, those people are trying to sell you an opinion - it is what they do for a living. I prefer to make my own. I found BSG unwatchable and implausible in its grimness. Aggregators be darned, if I can't stand watching the thing as enternatinment, it sure isn't as good to me.

The point here is that the writers and other staff are legitimately good.

As opposed to being illegitimately good? As if "good" was somehow objectively defined?

They've gone on to numerous other worthwhile endeavors as well.

That's true for both shows, so it isn't much of a differentiator. I mean, Ronald Moore was producer on DS9 before he did Galactica!

 

[Kaodi]

Would Homeland be more controversial if it were on a regular network rather than on Showtime? I am not sure how a show depicting how things turn out in a few decades could be more controversial than a show were an American "hero" is really a sleeper for "Al-Qaeda". I do not mean to dismiss your concerns completely but I think they may be overblown.