Tonight's cuppa: Irish breakfast tea
I promised this post today, and since today doesn't end for another two hours or so, I'm good.
During a recent conversation with "Battlestar Galactica" producer Ronald D. Moore, the topic of "Star Trek" came up -- click here for the first half of the chat, which I posted yesterday -- because he cut his screenwriting teeth working on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Star Trek: Voyager."
He seems pretty excited about the new "Star Trek" movie -- which features younger versions of the characters from the original 1960s 
series -- and made a good case for giving director J.J. Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman plenty of leeway in reinventing the franchise.
There just may be some numbers to back up his argument.
Back in November, I did "Franchise Wars" polls, in which Cuppers picked their favorite TV franchises and their favorite entries in each franchise, then published the results on Nov. 22. I shared the "Trek" portion with Moore to see what he thought.
As a reminder, here are the "Star Trek' results:
What is your favorite "Star Trek" series?
- "Star Trek" -- 7%
- "Star Trek: The Next Generation" -- 30%
- "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" -- 30%
- "Star Trek: Voyager" -- 22%
- "Star Trek: Enterprise" -- 7%
- "Star Trek: The Animated Series" -- 4%
Me: "Star Trek" (with "DSN" running a close second).
Gee, with such low numbers for the 1960s original series, I can only guess that the poll voters fall on the younger end of the 18-49 demographic, since people often (though not always) hold closest to their heart the "Trek" they grew up with -- but I'm happy to see a little love tossed the way of the oft-overlooked. Emmy-winning Saturday-morning animated show from the mid-'70s.
"If anything," Moore said, "(your poll results) should tell you that it's time to reinvent the original. It's not on anyone's radar anymore. It's receded pretty far into the past, and it can be reinvented once you cross that threshold."
Upon viewing the numbers I was dismayed to see how poorly the original series fared, which may be a measure of how many generations have now grown up on a different "Star Trek."
"I am shocked," said Moore. "The one you grow up with is the one you bond with, the one you take in, and then you branch out and
see the others.
'I'm surprised that 'Deep Space' is right up there with 'Next Gen.' That's certainly not the way it was. I'm encouraged by that."
"Enterprise" tried to return to a time even before the original series, in hopes of recapturing the magic. But it scored no higher than '60s "Trek," despite being the most recent iteration, having ended in 2005.
"I think 'Enterprise' misunderstood what the original 'Trek' was," Moore said. "I don't think they were shooting at the right target."
Moore also liked that "Trek" scored lowest in another poll asking with franchise Cuppers ignored.
"I have a running joke with my wife," Moore said, "that it's very difficult to go through an entire day without encountering one 'Star Trek' reference in some form."
Moore has wound up in another franchise of his own making, since his "Battlestar Galactica" is a re-imagined version of a short-lived 1970s series.
He's also spun off webisodes and and a movie called "Razor," which filled in an untold story during the show's run. Another movie, "The Plan," set in an earlier season of "Galactica," and directed by series star Edward James Olmos, is on the docket for the near future.
In addition, Sci Fi Channel has given a 20-episode order to "Caprica," a prequel spin-off set 50 years earlier in the universe of "Galactica," which begins its final 10-episode run on Jan. 16.
Starring Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales, Paula Malcomson and Polly Walker, "Caprica" follows the powerful 
Graystone and Adama families as they compete for power and success on the 12 Colonies during the the years leading up to the creation of the artificially intelligent, robotic Cylons, which eventually turn on their masters.
"I was delighted when the 'Caprica' pickup came," said Moore. "I was delighted that the 'Battlestar' universe would continue, and I could continue to play in that world, much more than I thought I would.
"I really thought of them as very separate projects, very separate moods and feelings to them, and I really wasn't connecting one to the other.
"But when the pickup came, I'd already completed most of the post-production work on the remaining episodes of 'Galactica.' It was something to look forward to and go, 'Wow, there really is something more to tell in this world.'"
Of course, the whole theme of "Battlestar Galactica" is humanity coping after the fall, but "Caprica" goes back to when the residents of the 12 Colonies are riding high.
Asked if this poses a challenge in finding the right tone while retaining the "Galactica" flavor, Moore says, "'Caprica' is a period piece in 'Galactica' terms. The way the pilot turned out, so strong, and the fact that it did feel like it stood on its own two feet and was a genuinely different period of time to deal with...I don't know. I liked the vibe of it.
"I'm very encouraged to see what we can do."
UPDATE: Click here for newer post with more Moore.
I hope Mr. Moore actually checks out the past work of Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman, so he'll know Star Trek may be in edgier territory, but will still suck under these guys. They have no integrity and no ambition to push the culture in terms of thinking about the most pressing issues of our time. They're cynical writers who are just as stuck in formula and gimmicks as Berman/Braga; they're just hipper and better at it. At least Berman co-wrote "The Maquis Parts 1 and 2", which had a sophisticated understanding of the origins of terrorism; these guys don't think of terrorism beyond a plot device.
The only people who had the integrity to do Star Trek well was Mr. Moore and especially Ira Steven Behr. Behr deserved a shot at recreating things at the film level. While his challenging work on The 4400's 3rd and 4th seasons questioned visions of the good society from both the supporters of a socialist and a hierarchical unfettered capitalist; continued to explore the true nature of terrorism; showed one's faith to be inherently tied to practical considerations and never the ridiculous dichotomy portrayed in "Lost"; and had some great acting with a very tiny budget, it was not appreciated by the sci fi community or the USA network that underpromoted it, interfered with it creatively in terms of political content and character portrayal, and then axed it, despite it getting higher ratings than BSG.
Meanwhile, copycat, formulaic, childish crap like "Fringe" (a shameless and gross rip-off of The X-Files without the dramatically realistic conspiracy), "Transformers" (just a T & A fest; the original cartoon had more heart), "Alias" (more T & A with the most boring James Bond undercover aspects over and over as well as another preposterous conspiracy), "Lost", and the shameless "Heroes" (Jesse Alexander was one of Abrams' proteges) get all the corporate world's love because they give the public the immediacy they think they want.
However, Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman's work is soulless -- the illusion of substance wrapped up in cheesy Hollywood style Americana meant to "touch" viewers without ever being realistic or getting them "down"; all the comedic moments are contrived, as is the drama that relies heavily on the existence of evil characters. In this way, they are derelict in reminding people of the trauma of our world without showing the meaning of it; "Fringe" talks about terrorism, but it's doubtful the writers have ever truly thought about it in relation to state tools of oppression or what actually motivates it.
Ira Steven Behr always has, as has Mr. Moore, and they're the kinds of men we need in charge of popular TV and film fiction to transform our culture into a more understanding and less gut-reaction oriented society that has reacted to 9/11 by giving Bush dictatorial powers at home and reckless support to intimidate, terrorize, and murder abroad. I fear this will continue to occur, especially given the mainstream media's unwillingness to change its commercially-driven, nationalistic, pro-Israeli and anti-Muslim world modus operandi. The Ira Steven Behrs of this world are the only ones who can save us.
I think Muldfeld has said exactly what I am dreading about the new Trek, Abrams himself, etc. First I'm not a Trekkie. Second, I can't stand Lost or Heroes. Third, I am all for spectacle if a given TV show/movie earns it through believable characters and well-written story. Fourth, I'm 23. That said...
The Star Trek trailer LOOKS fun. It has all the glaring lens effects, blazing visual effects, dry witty quips, energetic driving music and lusty sex scenes that keep target audiences happy/spending money. This is to say Abrams's Star Trek has the look and feel of more of the same cash cow tripe. Which I'm all for if I'm in the mood to spend $11 dollars on a movie my brain need not apply for.
Abrams, having himself stated he prefers the visceral look of Star Wars, hired Orci and Kurtzman to appease the core Trek audience. Their platitudes over getting it right only goes as far as continuity concerns, a fanboy minefield. Beyond being glorified fact-checkers supporting Abrams's schlocky direction, there is little for me to be excited about beyond the superficial.
In reading and watching the preamble to the summer '09 release, it seems that they have missed the point. There are an awful lot of explosions and arch villains in a property that once held the triumph of human endeavor and exploration over petty warfare as central tenants. Abrams and co are all flash and no substance running on a peepshow, fast-food methodology that lines their pockets and inflates egos. Part of me weeps when I see Abrams's tried and true formula, as transparent as it is, continue to rake in dough at our expense.
Moore is correct though, Trek does deserve a thoughtful mature re-make. I'm NOT saying it has to be as dark or as controversial as BSG. There is enough in Star Trek's own premise to find relevant fiction, stories, human stories, that matter. BSG, under Ron Moore, has managed to update the look of its predecessor while paying thoughtful mind to its own original premise. Real people populate Moore's Galactica, its ultimately about character, which makes BSG's spectacle all the more engaging.
An ideal redux of Trek would pay just as much attention to the essence of the property and nuance of character, as it does spectacle. Rather than play it safe raking in the big bucks, a legitimate concern, it is a business after all, the new Trek doesn't have to be so shallow. I wonder why Hollywood so rarely delivers summer fare of relevance. Its happened before with the right people on a given property its doable. ABRAMS isn't the right person for anything beyond making money.
Sigh. No matter the franchise this argument comes up every year...
I confess I like the idea of Zachary Quinto as Spock; beyond that, I'm all about waiting and seeing. But if you're a BSG fan, check out today's blog post, which is more with Moore, but all BSG. And I recommend a re-watching of ST:TOS. There was plenty of thoughtful stuff, but also plenty of action and melodrama. It was more pop culture than most of the material in the spin-offs. And a two-hour movie is a different critter than a TV show. If a TV series epic poetry, a movie is a haiku. I'm trying not to have expectations, which I find is good with most things in the entertainment world.