Memory Alpha:AOL chats/Ronald D. Moore/ron099.txt

Subject: Answers Date: Tue, Apr 7, 1998 21:01 EDT From: RonDMoore

I almost never do this, but I've decided to go back and amend one of my answers. A couple of weeks ago, someone posted a message taken from another website that essentially took the position that DS9 was "Anti-Trek" for a variety of reasons. It was a fairly lengthy diatribe covering two full pages in here and when I read it my first reaction was to dismiss it with a wave of my hand.

On reflection, however, I think that while I disagree rather strongly with most of the arguments advanced in that posting, it was a legitimate criticism of the show and probably deserved a better response than the one I gave.

So....

<<DS9 [is] going the way of the Dominion with the whole war thing. War was not what Star Trek was ever about and special effects shows should be left to the shows that have nothing else to offer and whose idea of storytelling is military and political hide and seek (e.g. Babylon 5.)

Quite simply if I want to watch B5, I can watch the original. I don't want to see the staff create an inferior version of it.

Star Trek's focus has always been on Science, exploration, ideas and knowledge, not blowing people up and regurgiating Cold War cliches.>>

Okay, let's start with, "War was not what Star Trek was ever about." The truth is that war and war-related themes have been present in Star Trek ever since the first season of the original series. We saw the Federation time and again come right up to the brink of war with various foes throughout the galaxy. We also watched as other races grappled with the costs of war and with the aftermath of bloody conflicts. The same thing happened in the Trek movies (III and VI particularly) and in TNG. What we've done on DS9 is to take our characters into the conflict instead of just talking about it. The line, "If X happens, (Jim, Jean-luc, Benjamin, Katherine) it could lead to interstellar war," has been said over and over again in the franchise. We wanted to see what would happen to our characters and our station if the unthinkable finally did happen. What would our people be forced to grapple with? How would it change them? What would be the costs of war? What kind of stories could we tell? What themes could we explore?

The Dominion War did not just happen overnight. This conflict has been building ever since we first encountered the Jem'Hadar back at the end of Season 2. The collision of the Dominion and the Federation has had an almost inevitable quality to it, and we the writers have felt that inevitability just as the characters have.

Claiming that Star Trek has always been about science, exploration, ideas, and knowledge is twisting the facts to fit a certain view. As I said in my original response, Star Trek is "about" a lot of things. Look at any season of any of the series' and you'll find that while the above themes have always been present, they haven't been the only focus of the voyages. Trek has also had a strong action-adventure component, a recurring use of comedy and satire, a healthy interest in romance and sex, a bit of melodrama and a dash of mysticism. The series have always appealed to different people for different reasons. To say that we can't explore the concept of a war engulfing the Alpha Quadrant simply because it's "not what Trek is about," is ridiculous. Trek is about a lot of things. That's the beauty of the concept. It allows the writer to explore virtually any theme or idea and paint is on a wide and far-reaching canvas.

<>

Gene also created a universe torn by conflict and deep hatreds that mirrored our own planet. This was a deliberate choice that allowed Star Trek universe to be used as a metaphor for our own world. The Federation has been dragged into war before, even during Gene's tenure (if only in back-story), the only difference is that we've chosen to actually show it and deal with it head-on.

<<Behr and Moore (whose purile mind I really blame for most of this) have instead created a war torn universe, revived religion and combined a mock spirtuality (Political correct neo Bhuddism) with a conservative view of the universe, one in which there is darkness and corruption everywhere (especially inside your own ranks) while our heroes stand as strong moral lights who follow orders without question (none of that "Damn it Jim, Captain you are being illogical bit"), our new crewmen are good soldiers who have no problem with doing anything they're told and don't question orders (e.g. For the Uniform, Sacrifice of Angels), old themes of purity through war and battle are brought back and we have DS9: Ronald Reagen. >>

This is a weak argument. We've shown over and over again that our characters question and quite often disobey orders they find objectionable. A more legitimate complaint is that our characters are probably not punished enough for their outright disobedience and occasional mutiny. I'm also not clear how we're presenting dark corrupting forces within our own ranks while at the same time we're showing ourselves to be strong moral lights.

As for the revival of religion, I happily plead guilty as one of the conspirators bringing this into the 24th century. Faith and the search for meaning in life are two of the great themes in human history and I'm glad we get to explore them on DS9. "Politically-correct neo-Bhuddism"? How Bhuddism translates into worship of the Prophets/Worm-hole aliens and the establishment of a near-theoracy on Bajor eludes me.

Regular readers of this board know my feelings about Ronald Reagan.

<Militarsitic values such as Worf's are acceptable but mercantilistic values are [not] because we've regressed to a toy soldier value system. That's why the Humanistically oriented Ship in which Sisko's values are questione gives way to the militaristic Rocks and Shoals in which the enemy's values are questioned and the Jem'Haddar are seen as better than the Vorta because they refuse to negotiate, compromise or see any sort of reason beyond exterminating the enemy, making them perfect representatives of militaristic morality which focuses not on which side is right, but which side is braver.>

Worf's values are quite often assailed on DS9. Few people outside of Dax understand or accept his ideas about conflict, death, war, or battle. "Rocks and Shoals" showed us a different face of our enemy than we'd seen before and gave the characters a new understanding of a fearsome opponent -- isn't that what Star Trek is supposed to do? Reducing "Rocks and Shoals" to a question of "which side is braver" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the show and I would advise a second viewing.

<>

This is demonstrably false. We constantly question the Federation and its ideals. And we have shown the social and political culture of Bajor to be a complex one with a lot of rough edges and a sometimes questionable morality.

<>

Actually, the Maquis were killed and dealt with in a fairly straightforward manner. Must the Kai always be bad and always be wrong? What about complexity? What about rounding out her character? And the Prophets have straddled the line between "aliens" and "gods" ever since the pilot.

<<I did not say that the ST universe lacked conflict or that it should lack conflict, without conflict there tends to be little drama. However there is the sort of conflict that Star Trek approaches in which we encounter different species or machines with whose existance we are temporarily incompatible. Occasionally those conflicts even take time to resolve but the focus of Star Trek is not on the conflicts but on the mission of Starfleet which is exploration.

Conflict in Star Trek was merely another means for exploration. The Klingons, the Romulans or the Cardassians were new species which we came in conflict with but in the process of resolving that conflict we also learned more about them. When we came into conflict with entities like the Borg, Q or the Guardian we came into contact with the mystery and wonder of the universe. >>

This boils down to an argument in favor of formula: Meet aliens in Teaser. Establish conflict in open acts. Resolve conflict by end of episode with greater understanding for all.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's been done in Star Trek before. Those episodes are still out there and you can watch them any time you want. The Dominion War is different. It's about what happens when those differences cannot be resolved, when the choices ultimately come down to freedom or submission. I once said that I didn't put phasers on the Enterprise, Gene did. He did believe in a better future, one in which humanity sought peace and freedom, but he also believed in fighting for one's beliefs. Would Kirk have bent his knee at the foot of the Founders? Would Picard? Would Janeway? I doubt it. Star Trek has always promoted the values of peace, understanding, and tolerance, but it's never advocated acceptance in the face of oppression, or pacificism as an answer to conquest.

The war will continue.