Memory Alpha:AOL chats/Ronald D. Moore/ron069.txt

Subj: Answers Date: 11/13/97 7:38:37 PM From:  RonDMoore

<>

Cardassia is now a full-fledged member of the Dominion.

<>

This was something we kicked around for a year or so before we actually did it.

<>

While I don't disagree with this, I wanted to point out that the Richard Nixon who later had the vision to reach out to China and the USSR was a different man in many ways from the VP who ran in 1960. One of the biggest differences was that Nixon in 1968 had lived through the Missile Crisis along with everyone else. I don't think we should underestimate the profound psychological impact that the Crisis had on political leaders on both sides in the post-1962 era. Both sides realized that they'd gone too close to the brink and both sides made efforts to resolve future confrontations peacefully. Without that formative experience, it's entirely possible that something like the Middle East confrontation in 1973 (in which the US rather unwisely put its nuclear forces on alert in response to Soviet movements) could've exploded into something far more serious.

<< Will there be an episode centering around the Vorta this year?>>

Probably not, but you'll be seeing more Vorta throughout the year.

<>

Not yet.

<>

Quark is forced to gather together a misfit team of Ferengi in order to save his mother from the clutches of the Dominion. You'll be seeing some familiar Ferengi faces in this one.

<>

They've been pretty much wiped out. However, there are rumors of some Maquis still lurking in the Delta Quadrant...

<>

We'll be exploring Damar more throughout the year, but we don't have an episode centered around him as yet.

<>

After "You Are Cordially Invited..." comes: "Resurrection" "Statistical Probabilities" "The Magnificent Ferengi" "Waltz" "Who Mourns for Morn" "One Little Ship"

<>

On the first question, we believe that Sisko forced their hand by his intention to die right there in the wormhole -- something they were hard pressed to ignore. The Prophets presumably have a plan, had a plan, will have a plan (well you get the idea) regarding Sisko and Bajor and were unwilling to let this event stand in the way. Have they been influencing or guiding events beyond the wormhole as well? Who knows? As for the second question, one might as easily ask why God saved the children of Israel from Pharoah but not from Hitler. The Bajorans have faith in their gods and the plan (if that's what it is) the Prophets have for them. Some of what the Prophets are doing, will do, have done (here we go again) is unknowable. Perhaps the Cardassian Occupation was a trial of fire for the Bajorans -- perhaps not.

This is an evolving storyline and while we do have some ideas on where it's going, we don't have all the answers yet.

Subj: Answers Date: 11/13/97 8:01:02 PM From:  RonDMoore

<<  -- RDM

Does this mean that the FX shots were a merging of CGI and models? The closeups were models and the far away ships were CGI?>>

Yes, most of the VFX shots were a composite of both methods and as a general rule the farther away something is on screen or the quicker it goes by, the greater the chance that it's a CGI shot.

<>

Damar's line is referring to the Dominion fleet, not the listening post(s) on the other side of the wormhole. It's a little unclear, but that is the intention.

<>

Nog may finish his studies at some future date, and we're not sure yet if Starfleet has rushed the entire junior class into service or not.

<>

This is something that we've discussed in-house many times and we haven't settled on the explanations or backstory of the Changelings yet.

<>

Nothing on this front yet.

<>

I haven't seen this magazine issue, but I did just read an article in yesterday's LA Times about Hersh and I came away unimpressed by his latest effort. Hersh is quoted several times in the interview as saying that he knew that historians would say that he hadn't proven many of his allegations, but that he printed them anyway because (I'm paraphrasing here) any reporter would see that they were "great stories." I prefer to keep my fiction and non-fiction on separate shelves.

<

Sorry to say that prayer and patience may be your only friends in this area.

<<Would it make any difference to DS9 as a show if it was picked up by UPN for a seventh season?>>

While this is not even a possibility (because DS9 is committed to syndication distribution) it probably would make a big difference because UPN would give us a much bigger publicity push than we currently receive and we'd be on at a consistant time around the country.

Subj: Answers Date: 11/13/97 8:16:20 PM From:  RonDMoore

<<I believe that some development execs at Paramount may have guided the development process [of DS9] along parallel lines [to that of B5], without those at ST knowing what was going on.>> -- J. Michael Straczynski

First of all, I will take it on faith that this is an accurate quote. I want to say that I do understand JMS's worries and concerns about this issue -- if I had developed my own series for several years and then saw a similiar show being developed at a studio I'd pitched to, I'd raise this concern as well. *However*... I honestly believe that Paramount's development of DS9 had nothing to do with B5. I was around here when most of the creative decisions were being made and I know for a fact that Michael and Rick made virtually all of the key decisions on their own and with very little input from the studio. Paramount made comments and gave notes on what they were doing, but I don't recall a single instance of the studio saying something like, "Hey, put a shapeshifter in the show," or something that could've been culled from JMS's work. Most of the similarities are fairly obvious choices for a space-based science fiction show that's not about a ship, even something like the fact that both first officers are female (think about it -- if you're not willing to take the plunge and finally put in a female lead on a sci-fi action/adventure series, but you do want to put women in a more prominent role, you put in a woman as second in command). I don't begrudge JMS his suspicions, I just think they're unfounded.

As to some of the other stuff you posted -- the arguments about Paramount leaning on talk shows not to book B5 guests and so forth -- hey, all's fair in love and war. (And I have NO idea if any of it is true or not, that's not my area of first-hand knowledge.) It's a competitive buisness and everyone's scrapping for the same audience. I'm sure that Warner Bros. is no virgin in this regard either.

<<Don't forget: The Walrus is Paul>>

Hey Man -- The Walrus is John!

<<You have said that Sisko did not intend on the Prophets stopping him from sacrificing the Defiant and himself, and that Sisko did not go looking for the prophets-- But Sisko, even in the height of war, found himself studying the Bajoran Dead Sea Scrolls looking for insight. Did he not see references to himself and to how he played/was playing/will play out in this situation?>>

We've said that the Prophecies are not only voluminous, but sometimes difficult to interpret. While it's possible that there was something in the texts referring to the situation in "Sacrifice", it's entirely possible that Sisko either didn't read that passage or didn't understand it.

Subj: Answers Date: 11/13/97 9:20:11 PM From:  RonDMoore

<<Wouldn't it have been easier for the prophets, who don't seem to enjoy our linear corporeal ways, to move Sisco and the Defiant out of the way instead of the fleet?>>

Yes, but Sisko specifically asked them to do much more than that: "Bajor needs a miracle!"

<<Any further thoughts on [a possible connection between the Founders and the Preservers from TOS]?>>

We haven't talked about this in quite a while, so I doubt that we'll be following it up.

<<in the 1950s, the United States had overwhelming nuclear supremacy over the USSR and the rest of the world. The Soviets were outnumbered in terms of deliverable nuclear weapons by a factor of 20 to 1, approximately, throughout much of this period. And, when there was pressure to use nuclear weapons against the PRC (Communist China) as a result of the war by proxy in Korea and Indo-China, both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations held back considerably. Prudence, in other words, was the hallmark of all administrations since the dawning of the atomic age.

Given the foregoing, I am not at all convinced that it is likely that RMN would have escalated the CMC to the nuclear threshold, and, indeed, I am, at least somewhat, more confident that he would have avoided the kind of reckless, inexperienced foreign policy that, arguably, JFK and his advisors engaged in.>>

Well, yes and no. I by no means am saying that Nixon would've been reckless, but I think you're over-emphasizing the moderation of the Eisenhower era. Certainly the foreign policy statements and positions of John Foster Dulles were anything but moderate and Ike did tend to let him lead the way in the field of relations with the Soviets. As I recall, it was Ike himself who started sending hints to the North Koreans soon after he assumed the presidency about possible atomic strikes if the Korean War was not concluded. After the launch of Sputnik, the entire US foreign policy establishment was up in arms about the Soviet lead in space technology and its implications regarding ballistic missiles. While the US did enjoy nuclear superiority for years, its leaders were also rather easily rattled by Khruschev's bombastic statements like "We will bury you," and tended to see a vast communist conspiracy enveloping the world in which both China and the USSR were marching in lockstep. I think that Nixon in 1962 was just as suseptible to this mistaken world view as everyone else was. I'm not at all confident that he would've steered matters in the CMC in a markedly different direction than did JFK, especially given Nixon rather infamous work as a notorious Red-baiter in the 50s and his inclination to see communist conspiracies whether they existed or not, and so he may well have seen the introduction of Soviet missiles into the western hemisphere as a much more provocative act that even Kennedy did.

Subj: Answers Date: 11/14/97 12:33:19 AM From:  RonDMoore

<<Um... I'm not quite sure I understand. How is DS9 committed to syndication? is it committed for x amount of years? When that's up can you switch to network?>>

DS9 was sold to the local affliates around the country on a six-year deal that essentially contained options every year that permitted the affiliates and the studio to re-up every season for a set price. (At least, this is the way I understand it -- this is not my field of expertise and your mileage may vary.) At the end of the six year run, I think each station still has the right of first refusal when it comes to re-upping for a seventh year, so it would be extremely difficult for the studio to suddenly try to put the series on UPN. Also, I'm not sure what the advantages would be for the studio and/or UPN to try such a scheme, so it's basically a lock that if there's a seventh year, it'll be in syndication.

<<let's do a switcharound and postulate what would have happened if JFK's style had pervaded during 1956. If JFK had had the attitude of "bear[ing] any burden, pay[ing] any price" to defend democracy anywhere around the globe (an activist, universalist, and fairly overbroad statement, and unrealistic even in those days, if you ask me), then where would we have been under his hypothetical presidency when the Soviets moved into Hungary? When the Soviet/Chinese proxies provided arms to Ho Chi Minh and started killing American advisors? When Communist China undertook to retake Tibet?

I think, fundamentally, the activism and vigor of JFK's policy style would have led to a greater expectation of armed conflict; JFK did not have the background which permitted him to steer sideways or backwards, whereas the old, cold warriors, DDE and RMN, decidedly did. >>

I don't think it's fair to project JFK's foreign policy backward into 1956 because the world situation was so different. I doubt that even JFK himself was advocating the same policies and ideas in '56 that he was in '62. Back-dating JFK's policies to '56 is like extending Nixon's knee-jerk anti-communism of the mid-fifties to a theorectical Nixonian crisis management of the CMC in '62. My position continues to be that our examination of Nixon in '62 should not be influenced by his later accomplishments or views, but should be examined in the context of the times. And the Nixon in '62 did not have the seasoning and experience that the Nixon in '72 did when he was dealing with the Soviets, the Chinese and the Vietnamese.

On another subject, I think that while the "Bear any burden" notion of American involvement around the world to fight communism may not have been actively guiding policy when the USSR invaded Hungary, it was most definitely there when North Korea invaded South Korea some six years earlier. Indeed, Truman's decision to aid the Greek anti-communists in '49 (?) and his promotion of the Marshall Plan are the direct ancestors of the "Bear any burden" philosophy. JFK's advocacy of aiding aiding anti-communists around the world was simply an extension of those ideas.

Subj: Answers Date: 11/14/97 3:30:55 AM From:  RonDMoore

<< I wanted to know if any character on DS9 would ever express their belief in a common human religion such as Christianity or Islam, rather than seeming to be agnostic, subscribing to "alien" religions, such as Sisko's role as the Emissary, or operating under the "science is absolute" dogma? There have been episodes in both TOS and TNG as well as DS9 focusing on the religion of other alien races, but never any truly human-based beliefs. ST5 had this as a theme, but it wasn't fully explored in my opinion.>>

Gene felt very strongly that none of the mainstream religions now on Earth would still be around in the 24th century. It's not something that I necessarily agree with, but at the same time it was a core tenet of his philosophical construct of the 24th century and we're probably not going to mess with it.

<< I was very surprised when Dukat actually took down the minefield. I was under the impression that he was stalling, most likely in the hopes that the federation and the dominion would wear themselves out and he would swoop down and take it all. Was that a red herring, an alternative you toyed with and rejected, or my imagination? >>

Although I think we did talk about this idea briefly during a story meeting, we never took it beyond the discussion phase. Dukat as seen on screen was never stalling in his efforts to bring down the minefield.

<<First, losing a powerful enemy is traumatic, and Dukat's fall from power particular, how will Kira react now that one of her main "reasons for living" (to hate Dukat and fight against him) is gone?>>
 * should* affect Sisko and the others. Will we see any of that?  In

Sisko's reaction to the fall of Dukat will be addressed in "Waltz." Kira's reaction will be dealt with, but not in the near future.

<<Can you/will you please share what you're thinking about as a future for Dukat? First, how do Cardassians view mental illness? Will he be accepted as "cured" and returned to duty (assuming the Federation lets him go), or will he be deemed "unfit for further service" and retired from the military? Will he be welcome on Cardassia, or shunned? He's a career soldier...what will happen to him without a command? >>

You'll have to wait for "Waltz" to get answers to most of these questions.

<< I think Marc deserves an Emmy nomination for this, so do a lot of other people. We're quite serious. Is there anything fans can do to bring this performance to the attention of those who vote on these awards? Who does award the Emmy, BTW?>>

The awards are bestowed by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and there's very little that the fans can do to influence this august body.

<< When's *Dukat* due back after "Waltz"?>>

Don't know yet.

<<What can you tell us about "[One] little ship"?>>

Not much yet... but the title is very descriptive.

<<Now, now, Ron. I know John said he was the walrus, but... To quote from "Glass Onion" on the "White" album...

"Well here's another clue for you all The walrus was Paul.">>

Oops. I hang my head in shame. I will now have to go back watch the entire "Beatles Anthology" all over again as my punishment (he says with glee).

<<Was the actor playing the cardassian watching kira and her co-conspirators voice over-dubbed? when he was talking to quark the suffle' he sounded like pee-wee playing the bell hop in the big screen version of pee wee's big adventure.>>

I believe a fair amount of dubbing was involved in this scene -- don't know why.

Subj: Answers Date: 11/14/97 3:54:38 AM From:  RonDMoore

<<Have you decided to abandon this distinction between Odo and his people? [That Odo distinguishes between the concepts of Order and Justice.] Do you assert that it never existed? Or did you just need to be reminded of it? OR should I trust that you have it in mind, and are playing that the emotional influences have clouded him a bit?>>

We haven't forgotten that element of his character. Odo's a multi-faceted individual and there are many things that distinguish him from the other Founders, one of those things being his emotional attachment to a solid.

<<Ron, several weeks ago you mentioned that the writing staff was talking about a Romulan story this season. Any progress on that? Will we see the Romulans in the coming future?>>

No, in fact we've pretty much abandoned the idea. I'm beginning to doubt that we'll bring back the Romulans this year at all.

<< I believe that by the 1960s the responsibility of being a nuclear power were becoming quite clear to both powers; Khruschev himself was deposed shortly after the CMC in part because of his role in the Soviet's retreat from the brink in CMC, and because it was felt by the Politburo that he could not be trusted to protect the USSR from nuclear attack. By contrast -- and I am not the first to note this -- when the United States was the strongest relative to the rest of the world, the risk of a "hot" war was actually the greatest, since (1) there was a far smaller chance than subsequently that the mainland United States would suffer nuclear devastation; (2) massive conventional forces had as yet not been completely demobilized or mothballed from World War II; and (3) revolutionary fervor and rhetoric were both extremely high in the Communist world. Again, that Eisenhower and Nixon did nothing to exercise the final option in Indo-China and Korea shows a significant degree of restraint in foreign policy. >>

My reading of the mood in 1960 is not quite so rosy. Remember that the U-2 incident and the revolution in Cuba were the last two acts of the Cold War played out in the Eisenhower administration and both were seen as grevious setbacks to the US. Relations between the two countries were anything but amicable, especially since the situation in Germany, particularly in Berlin was tense and getting worse if anything. Khruschev was openly threatening to end US and NATO access to West Berlin and a military confrontation in central Europe seemed to be just over the horizon.

The period of unquestioned US conventional and nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union was much earlier and lasted but a few years. The demobilization of US forces following WWII happened at breakneck speed and by the time the Korean War erupted in 1950, our forces were hardpressed just to keep from being completely wiped out in the initial weeks of that conflict. By 1960, US conventional strength had been rebuilt to a degree, but the Soviet advantage in Europe was still overwhelming and thus NATO came to rely on the US nuclear arsenal to offset the massive threat of the Red Army.

With the launch of Sputnik, and the implicit threat of nuclear weapons platforms being sent into orbit and literally hanging over the heads of the US population (as unrealistic as hindsight now tells us that to be) the beginning of the 1960s was a time of great tension between the two superpowers and the idea of a head-on collision was not that far-fetched. Given all that, and given that the last thing Nixon wanted was to be seen as "soft" on the question of Cuba (remember that the hue and cry over who "lost" China was still ringing in everyone's ears), I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he would've wanted to take a hardline against the installation of missiles 90 miles off the Florida coast.

By the way, A5 -- this is a thoroughly enjoyable conversation and I'm gratified you're enjoying it as well. Hope we're not the only two!