History of the Dominion War, parts 5, 6, and 7

Triple Dose of one YouTuber's excellent compilation of the Dominion War. Enjoy!

5:



6:




7:



*scroll through the fanzine for earlier parts
Comments

The Ethics of Star Trek: Exclusive Interview with Judith Barad

The Ethics of Star Trek, by Judith Barad, Ph.D (with Ed Robertson) is by far the most readable and well-argued scholarly work on philosophy and Star Trek. Readers will come away from this text with a deeper understanding of classical and Western philosophy, as well as a deeper appreciation of how the "messages" of Trek remain relevant today. The book demonstrates, quite forcefully, how Trek has risen above the mainstream of television entertainment by seriously exploring the ethical, moral, and philosophical dilemmas of our world.

The author, Professor Judith Barad, graced us with an exclusive interview about her work and her perspective on the Trekverse. Enjoy!

---------

Trekdom: Your book, The Ethics of Star Trek, is a wonderful text, because, while delving into the complex teachings of many philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.) the chapters are very readable and accessible, especially for those of us lacking a strong background in intellectual history. Was it challenging to present these complex philosophies in a way that a general audience would understand, or did Star Trek make it easy, considering that so many episodes explore philosophical issues, ethical dilemmas, and existential choices?

Judith Barad: Since I started teaching these philosophies in 1982, I have tried to explain them in a way that a college freshman would understand. Star Trek made it easier to explain the philosophies because it illustrated the concepts and theories in a concrete yet entertaining way. The first time students are exposed to philosophy, many find it quite daunting. Like others who don’t have a background in intellectual history, beginning students won’t always “see” the importance of philosophical reasoning because it deals with issues from an abstract perspective. But Star Trek enables people to “see” for themselves the importance these issues have in the lives of characters they grow to care about. In contrast to the abstract concepts of philosophy, the Star Trek episodes are much easier to follow since they have a plot and characters that engage the viewer’s emotions. These episodes are designed to be interesting, designed to be entertaining. Moreover, Star Trek dramatizes ethical dilemmas in almost every episode, a fact I became aware of in 1966 when it first aired. It was and still is, to the best of my knowledge, the only prime-time popular series designed to motivate people to think about ethical decision-making. Roddenberry, who considered himself an amateur philosopher, said that underneath all the action and special effects, he was creating moral fables. As a result of his influence, Star Trek has continued to reflect the ethical issues current during each of its five series.

Although I found it easy to apply the philosophies to the episodes, Ed Robertson helped to make the book even more entertaining to a popular audience.

Trekdom: While reading your book, I was surprised by how different the ethics or “messages” of each series are in your analysis. Can you tell our readers more about the changing ethics of Trek, from the original Star Trek to Star Trek: Voyager?

Judith Barad: One very striking change from series to series has to do with the issues that were addressed. In the late sixties, Star Trek confronted racism, war, genetic engineering, and drug usage. Later, The Next Generation dealt with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and terrorism. In the nineties, Deep Space Nine and Voyager tackled sexual harassment, homosexuality, homelessness, animal rights, the injustice of HMOs, dumping toxic waste, and other environmental issues.

Another dramatic change involved the way women have been depicted in the various series, which is itself an ethical issue. In The Original Series, sexism was rampant, expressed in everything from some of the story lines (“Turnabout Intruder”) to the way actresses were clothed. In The Next Generation, women were clothed, generally, more in keeping with their professions. However, Doctor Crusher and Deanna Troi weren’t in the top tier of leadership positions. By the time of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek gave us a female first officer and the evolution was completed by Voyager’s Captain Janeway.

As I argue in The Ethics of Star Trek, The Original Series emphasized virtue ethics in a way that values the free choices of individuals over the dictates of machines or other kinds of more powerful beings. The Next Generation, while not abandoning virtue ethics, highlighted the ethics of duty. At the same time, it continued The Original Series concern that the free choices of individuals should triumph over that of machine cultures, like the Borg, or more powerful beings, like Q. Deep Space Nine wasn’t as concerned with virtue ethics or with affirming the choice of the individual over machines or more powerful beings. While it continued The Next Generation’s interest in the ethics of duty, its primary ethical principles are drawn from existentialism. Although The Next Generation did feature some existentialist principles, Deep Space Nine applied them far more regularly. Voyager, in contrast with the two earliest series, is more comfortable with the collective good and the Platonic notion of a philosopher queen.

TD: Were those differences a reflection of the broader cultural context? Would you say that Cold War beliefs in moral certainty gave way to existential doubts in the 1990s and that Star Trek reflected those changing perceptions?

Barad: Certainly, the changing issues were a reflection of the broader cultural context. This was also true of the changing role of women in Star Trek, although the positions of Kira and Janeway may still be a little ahead of the time.

If I were to grant that the early series expressed moral certainty, I must stipulate that this moral certainty wasn’t that of the traditional values found in the culture. For example, The Original Series was opposed to racism and war, unlike the traditional, conservative culture of the time. Yet it’s true that Kirk wouldn’t have violated his personal ethics, the way Sisko did in The Pale Moonlight. Kirk doesn’t feel such existential doubts about his actions as Picard does (Conundrum), and Picard isn’t as extreme in his existential doubts as Sisko. Janeway, on the other had, doesn’t seem to go through any more existential doubt than her two earliest counterparts. Since Deep Space Nine and Voyager were very contemporary with each other, I don’t see a clear progression from moral certainty to existential doubt.

TD: Despite the different outlooks of each series, you write about a “moral tapestry” of Star Trek, which unites seemingly contradictory philosophies into a coherent ethical system. Can you please say a few words about that?

Barad: The Ethics of Star Trek contains a list of principles, drawn from the great ethicists, which are used in most episodes in each of the series. These principles include the following:
1. Choose to do that action that you could rationally will everyone else to do.
This principle helps us to determine which actions are our moral duties. In deciding what to do, we should always ask ourselves as honestly as possible: (1) What’s the principle behind our actions? and (2) Is this a principle everyone should follow? Would we rationally want everyone to do what we intend to do? What we think is right (or wrong) for one person to do in certain circumstances must be right (or wrong) for any other person to do in relevantly similar circumstances.
2. Act so that you treat sentient individuals as an end and never as a means only.
A sentient individual is one who is capable of perceiving and feeling. The principle means that we should never use the services or skills of sentient individuals simply as a means for our own purposes. We must always recognize them as individuals with intrinsic value over and above our needs.
3. The intention motivating an action is more important than the consequences of an action. It’s not just what we do that matters, but also why we do it. In “The Measure of a Man,” Louvois ordered Riker to prosecute the case against Data for Starfleet. She warns Riker that unless he gives it his best effort, she will automatically decide that Data is a “toaster” and should be turned over to commander Maddox. Caught between a rock and a hard place, Riker does his best in the courtroom. Doing the right thing doesn’t always guarantee a good outcome. At the end of the story, Riker is devastated by his part in the trial. Yet the long-term outcome was that there won’t be a race of android slaves and Data was saved. Recognizing Riker’s intentions, Data tells him, “That action injured you, and saved me. I will not forget.”
4. The goodness of an action is assessed in terms of both its means and its end.
A bad means can’t justify a good end. The term ‘end’ refers to someone’s goal or purpose. If there’s something morally objectionable about either the end or the means to accomplish it, the action isn’t a good one. If alternative means are necessary, we must choose among them rather than an ethically objectionable means. For instance, in Insurrection, the Federation discovered a virtual fountain of youth, but to utilize it, an entire population would have to be displaced. There’s no other means available to achieve this benefit. While the end of prolonging people’s lives is a good one, the means necessary to accomplish it, in this case, is unethical. Seemingly conscious of this principle, Picard strongly opposes the Federation’s attempt to use the “fountain of youth.”
5. Freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. We should exert control over our inner life and our outer life, accepting authority and accountability for making decisions affecting ourselves and others. We’re personally responsible to set rules and limits for ourselves. No matter how tempting it is to shirk our responsibility, we can’t blame anyone else for the choices we’ve made—not our parents, not our bosses, not our friends, not television, not our economic system, nor any other aspect of society. If we say “I was just following orders,” we’re just as responsible as the person who gave the orders, even though we’re trying to fool ourselves into thinking that we had no choice in the matter.
6. Moral decisions are made by reason—not emotion or tradition. Reasoning, rather than emotion or tradition, gives us the tool we need to review, evaluate, and revise our ethical decisions. Good ethical reasoning requires us to recognize and go beyond self-deception, uncritical conformity, and ethical intolerance. Only by reasoning can we question our assumptions and objectively consider alternative ways to address problems.
7. Altruism has priority over egoistic concerns. When faced with a situation where we must choose between doing the unselfish thing or acting selfishly (all things being equal), we must act unselfishly.
8. We must not injure or harm others.
9. We must deal justly with others. The formal principle of justice states that no one should be treated differently from someone else unless it has been shown that there’s a difference between them morally relevant to the treatment at issue. This is why the question of Data’s sentience in “The Measure of a Man” is important. If he’s sentient, then the formal principle of justice requires us to treat him as equal to everyone else. If he isn’t sentient, then that fact would count as a relevant difference, justifying unequal treatment. Sentience, is this instance, is a relevant difference for whether someone should be treated as a disposable item.

TD: Fascinating! Lastly, do you have any advice for graduate students and colleagues who, while trying to write dissertations on Trek or use Trek in the classroom, have faced resistance from advisors or committees?

Barad: Not only had my Star Trek and Philosophy course been approved as a standard course within philosophy at Indiana State University, but I also had it approved by committees for general education credit. At first, there was some resistance because the notion of the course seemed to have nothing to do with philosophy. However, committees are required to look at a proposal more deeply and not abide by their first superficial impression. My syllabus and rationale for the course made it clear that students would be required to read standard primary sources. Then I argued that the value of philosophical material (or any academic material) is in its application. Star Trek shows students how the principles enunciated by the greatest philosophical minds can both be illustrated and used in interesting situations. Although I didn’t appeal to the increasingly recognized field of philosophy and popular culture, I also recommend that this be part of someone’s argument arsenal. There are several popular book series by publishers like Open Court that appreciate the marriage of popular culture and academic subjects. Finally, the best way for an academic work to receive attention is to appeal to people beyond the halls of academia. If the work is capable of receiving this attention while simultaneously edifying people who wouldn’t otherwise read such material, the work is far more successful than a work that only has other Ph.D.s for its audience.

------

*Purchase The Ethics of Star Trek here. Visit Ed Robertson's site here. Trekdom highly recommends this book for all Trek fans and students of philosophy. We also encourage Indiana State University students to take her Star Trek and Philosophy course when offered.

Also read TrekWeb's review.

Comments at Trekdom

Comments at Trekbbs

History of the Dominion War, part 4

Part 4 of one youtuber's hour-long compilation of the Dominion War. Very cool.



Comments

History of the Dominion War, part 3

A Youtuber has attempted to piece together the entire DS9 Dominion War into one hour of footage. Here is part 3 of this hour-long thrill ride:



Comments and Reviews

Clip of the Day: History of the Dominion War, part 2

A YouTuber has attempted to piece together the entire Dominion War with one hour of footage. Here is part 2 of the one-hour clip. Enjoy!




------------
Comments
------------

Chase Masterson Speaks Candidly about DS9, Leeta, and "Catsuit Controversies."

While Chase Masterson prepares for the release of the upcoming film "Yesterday Was A Lie" in which she plays a leading role, she was kind enough to answer our questions surrounding the character of Leeta and Deep Space Nine.

*photo from "Yesterday Was A Lie."
-------------



TD: Chase, you’ve interviewed so many Trek actors and insiders on theFandom.com, from George Takei to Brannon Braga. Which interview was your favorite and why?

Chase: That's a fabulous question--there were so many fun & intriguing ones, in different ways.

The interview with Ira Behr was definitely a favorite--he's so down-to-earth, so emotionally wise, genuine. That's why DS9 was such an important show, such a compelling one, because he and his team wrote out of their hearts, they created out of who they are.

I loved interviewing Ron Moore for that same reason, and because he has such a great story of how he got in to this business, and he's so very talented and still so humble.

Interviewing George was fun, as he's a pal, and it's always great to chat with someone who has seen so much of this amazing phenomenon. Marina was a real kick (when is she not?), and the Enterprise guys were a really interesting bunch, as we talked mid-stream through the campaign to keep the show on. That was an important time, and even though the campaign wasn't a success, it was heartening to see the commitment the fans still have to Star Trek.

There were other shows, too, with actors who are sci-fi favorites, like Bruce Campbell and Dean Haglund. Zany! But very real. I think that, often, the most talented people are a combo of that & more.

TD: Do you plan to continue interviewing for theFandom.com, or has your focus shifted to other endeavors? What does the future hold?

Chase: I'm not doing those interviews currently, and I don't have any plans to do that in the future. The company who I did those for has really changed focus, and my plate is really full lately, too. More on this later...

TD: Could we get your perspective on some of “catsuit controversies” during the past decade? When the producers of Star Trek: Voyager replaced Kes with Seven of Nine, many fans as well as Trek actors bitterly complained about “TandA ratings gimmicks” and the objectification of a woman’s body with TOS-style “tin-foil bikinis.” These criticisms continued into the Enterprise years when some fans argued that the producers catered to the lowest denominator with steamy “decon-chamber rub-downs” and “T’pol in Heat.” Having played one of the sexiest women of the Trek franchise, what is your take on these controversies and complaints? Did you feel like the character of Leeta was an “eye candy” addition to cast?

Chase: Thanks for the compliment! I’m blushing.

Where do I begin on this? It seems that some characters, including Seven of Nine and T'Pol, were written for those reasons. I agree with the fans' sentiments that it seems that this kind of writing is done in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator; that happens on a lot of shows, but I don't believe it needs to, and it definitely shouldn't have to happen on Trek. There's so much more to focus on, and the fans of this show recognize that. I wish this industry generally respected viewers more, but a lot of people in this business don’t even respect themselves.

I didn't watch every episode of Voyager & Enterprise, and maybe there were some really redeeming qualities in those characters and their arcs, so I don't want to say I have a really solid take on this subject where those characters are concerned.

I want to make this clear: this is not a statement on either of the actresses who played the roles; I think it's a natural temptation for viewers to hold an actor accountable for the choices the character makes, but it's not the actors' fault, you know?

As for Leeta, it's hard to see myself as being seen in that way--I just don't think I'm eye candy. But even if Leeta were written for that reason, I’m thankful that the writers very quickly put a depth into the character that I hope made up for it. The journey that Leeta went on, in standing up for what is right in the Ferengi union, and in loving the guy who was only pretty on the inside, and especially in her having the strength required to remain committed throughout the inherent difficulties in their relationship, was an example to me of the kind of choices that are healthiest to make — maybe not the easiest, but the most joyful & growth-inducing, in the long run. I hope it was an example to other people, too.

Again, I don't know the journeys that the characters of Seven of Nine and T'Pol made, so I can't really judge that.

TD: Speaking of Leeta/Rom, was the inter-species relationship between the two characters as well-developed as it could have been? Bajoran and Ferengi culture were so different. Although Rom certainly wasn’t a typical Ferengi, it seems that there could have been much more conflict between them in terms of religion, morals, cultural assumptions, gender roles, etc. Did you feel like the writers and producers missed any opportunities to make the relationship more complex?

Chase: There were so many wonderfully complex characters and situations in DS9, it would have been impossible for the writers to have explored all the possibilities for all of the characters. Thank you for wanting more! We did, too. But we realize that the writers created a beautiful amount of thoroughness in our characters and situations, especially considering the amount of screen time that was shared with so many other characters, and we were so blessed to be in a quality show like this at all. There are so many talented actors who never get to work, much less on something that is both so meaningful and so well loved.

I think some of the possibilities that Leeta and Rom had are explored in the novels. I have some ideas. Should I write one?

TD: Absolutely! Trekdom would love to publish excerpts... So many, many fans rate Deep Space Nine as the best Trek series in terms of writing, complex themes, provocative “morality plays,” and character development. Yet, the series lost more and more viewers each season. Do you have any theories that explain this paradox? Did the show demand too much from casual viewers? Were there other factors?

Chase: I didn’t realize that the show lost viewers with each season. It’s possible that the serial nature of the show intimidated some people who didn’t think they’d be able to catch up after missing some episodes. But the serial nature of the show—following the characters in their ongoing life stories—was such a huge part of what made the show great, and unique at the time; DS9 was truly a forerunner of what television at its finest was morphing into.

One interesting thing is this: there are so many people who were not fans of the show while it was first airing who have become fans through watching it on Spike or watching the DVDs. Ira Behr actually predicted that—it was back in the 5th season that he said that he thought that once it was on in classic syndication style, running episodes back to back, that more people would really grasp the quality of the show. And they have.

TD: Thank you for your time Chase.

Chase: Thank you, Trekdom! My pleasure…all the best to you!

----------------------
Please visit http://www.YesterdayWasALie.com for more info on Chase Masterson's next starring role. Visit http://www.chaseclub.com/thefandom.html to listen to her archived interviews of Trek stars and insiders.
----------------------
Comments and Discussion
-------------

In Defense of Rick Berman

In Defense of Rick Berman
By Jared B.

----------

When Rick Berman assumed control of Star Trek: The Next Generation about halfway through its first season, he inherited a disaster of a show. The atmosphere behind-the-scenes was chaotic, hurtful, and infuriating for many insiders. Gene Roddenberry, having been heavily intoxicated and overly “medicated,” alienated many of the people who had made the original Star Trek superb. D.C. Fontana recalled:

"As 1987 progressed… No one but Gene could be recognized as a contributor to ideas for the show. No one else could write a final draft. Writer-producers on the show felt the same anger and outrage I did at being excluded from the production process – at being told not to visit the sets or speak to the actors – at watching perfectly good scripts be rewritten by Gene into something far less – at having their files prowled through and sometimes removed. Definitely gone were the days when a staff birthday was an occasion and the crew was rewarded with a party for hard work. In the space of nine months, no fewer than eight writing-staff members left the series. There was no high sense of morale or community; rather the production offices were like an armed camp. Armed against Gene Roddenberry because of his alienating actions." (Fontana quoted in Engel, xii-xiii)

In addition to D.C. Fontana, other great Trek insiders such as David Gerrold left the show, feeling betrayed and belittled by the self-proclaimed humanist.

Word on the streets of Hollywood was “Don’t go near that show!” New writers felt strangled by Roddenberry's "box" of rules that made little sense. Somehow, they had to tell interesting stories about humans aboard a spaceship without depicting conflict between Starfleet officers. They were also asked to write fascinating and dynamic characters who were supposedly "too evolved" to have flaws or interesting personality quirks. Roddenberry’s utopian diatribes about 24th century humanity could be entirely contradictory, such as the notion that humans are too evolved for intolerance, yet under no circumstances would they tolerate “primitive and superstitious beliefs” like religion. Writers were left in an awkward position, bound by rules that were either inherently contradictory or outwardly at odds with the rules of good writing. The show suffered.

After reigning as a insecure visionary, and after alienating many people who had made the original Trek a phenomenon, Gene Roddenberry stopped contributing, although he retained his executive producer title. The person who did the job was Rick Berman.

Berman was not very familiar with the original Star Trek. But, he didn’t need to be, at least not according to Roddenberry himself. Just as Harve Bennett had discovered when making The Wrath of Khan, Roddenberry’s pronouncements about his vision of Trek didn’t match what viewers saw on the original series. If Berman meant to stay true to Roddenberry’s current vision and “box,” watching Kirk and crew would have been simply confusing.

Instead, Berman was determined to make the rules works, bending them slightly if necessary, but always concluding episodes with an optimistic depiction of the future. He was also committed to making the characters more complex, going so far as to hire Michael Piller, who was known for his excellent character writing yet lacking in experience as a science-fiction writer. Unlike Roddenberry, Berman, time and time again, gave new writers a shot to contribute to Trek in lasting ways, instead of jealously protecting Star Trek as his personal vision of the future. Ron D. Moore, Ira Behr, Brannon Braga, and many other young writers owed much to Berman’s willingness to give credit where credit was due. Although he held the reins and made executive decisions regarding the direction of the franchise, he was always open to collaboration, and, in many instances, he took risks. Gone were the days when an associate producer stood on the executive producer’s desk impatiently waiting for him to finish rewriting another author’s script (in between binges and late-night affairs). Instead, Berman’s Trek was a well-oiled machine that initially encouraged collaboration, brainstorming, and differences of opinion, so long as those differences didn’t become personal.

During the next few years, Berman, with the help of these talented writers and others, turned Star Trek: The Next Generation into a hugely popular cultural phenomenon. By all indications, TNG was coming into port, surpassing the original Star Trek in the public imagination and paving the way for new films and new series. Trek reached its peak in terms of profitability and popularity. When the franchise celebrated its 25th anniversary, the future of Star Trek seemed endless. Anyone predicting the demise of Trek would have been shunned and mocked.

Without Berman, Trek may have ended with the retirement of the original Enterprise crew. Instead, we were given a new generation to continue the legacy on the big screen. And, we were given Deep Space Nine, which, by most accounts, was the best Trek series of the entire franchise. Not only was Berman willing to take a huge risk by changing the format, but he also openly defied Gene Roddenberry’s formula and rules in the process. Deep Space Nine depicted religion and faith in more respectful ways. Internal and external conflict drove stories in complex and provocative directions. Characters were far from perfect and boring exemplars of human progress, and the 24th century, in the midst of war, cultural conflict, and dangers of militarism was far from the vague and unworkable utopia of Roddenberry’s Trek. Instead, under the direction of Rick Berman, the Trekverse became more realistic and believable. Certainly, Behr, Moore, Piller, and others deserve much credit for Deep Space Nine, but so too does Rick Berman for allowing the writers to move in this direction while giving them the freedom to write superb television without caring about the ratings.

Yet, Berman, as executive producer, had to care about the ratings. Despite its triumphs and break-throughs, DS9 bled viewers year after year. Perhaps the show demanded too much. After all, it would have been impossible to casually tune into the Dominion War and immediately understand the complex relationships between the Founders, Vorta, Cardassians, Klingons, and wormhole aliens. Can we really blame Rick Berman for turning back from this great experiment and creating a new show, Voyager, that more clearly corresponded to the format of TNG? At the heights of its popularity, Trek followed this format. It was a tried and true success. Should we also blame him for abandoning the Alpha Quadrant, which had become much too complex for stand-alone episodes that could be viewed out-of-order? It would have pleased the hardcore fans to watch two series simultaneously engulfed in a complex war that required viewers to watch every episode with soap-operaesque obsession. What about the mainstream, casual viewer? What about new viewers, who might stumble onto Trek having never seen Deep Space Nine? If Star Trek was to continue in TNG’s formidable footsteps, the next series had to be familiar to TNG viewers, and DS9 was not.

As the ratings for Voyager fell during its first three seasons, many fans blamed Berman. Some of his decisions deserved criticism, especially the quick resolution of the Starfleet/Marquis conflict and the use of uninteresting villains like the Kazon. Other criticisms were sometimes petty. Despite its flaws, Voyager had many gems in those first few seasons. Unquestionably, the show suffered from the departures of Moore, Piller, and others. But other factors, especially the growing influence of UPN, contributed to the demise. TNG broke new grounds as a syndicated show not subject to the interventions of network micro-managers. But, with Voyager, Paramount finally launched the great experiment of a studio network headed by a new Trek show (see Star Trek: Phase II). As a network, not only was it constantly redefining its target demographic, but also the quality of most programs was dismal. There are many television markets to this day that do not carry UPN.

Other factors were in play. Rick Berman was justifiably concerned that “too many trips to the well” had occurred. He was also justifiably concerned that, due to the political correctness of the early 90s, Trek had now become much too conservative. Why not make it sexy again? Certainly TOS “tinfoil bikinis” were out-of-the-question, but why not throw in some sex appeal and visual titillation? Many fans criticized the decision to add Seven of Nine as a “ratings gimmick” that “catered to the lowest denominator.” If fans believe this, then they should remind themselves the original Star Trek must have catered to the lowest denominator. Also, the writing for Seven was superb for the most part, adding in a well-needed source of conflict and drama.

Despite these and other attempts to liven up Voyager, ratings continued to slip after an initial season 4 boost. Rick Berman had to try something bold and different. What could have been riskier than a prequel that took place before the time of Kirk and Spock? Although, in this author’s opinion, the execution of Enterprise was deeply, deeply flawed, the premise held much potential. Berman can be faulted for the execution, but, perhaps his biggest mistake was circling the wagons around Brannon Braga and himself, while attempting spearhead a prequel to a show that he never really watched or enjoyed. If the process had been more openly collaborative with people like Fontana, Black, Justman, and younger TOS aficionados like Coto from the beginning, then it’s possible that Enterprise could have been superb.

But, even if the first three seasons had been as good as the last, then it may have still bled viewers just as Deep Space Nine bled viewers. Other factors were beyond the control of Rick Berman.

He was our scapegoat, and, while witnessing the demise of Trek the last several years, we have used Mr. Berman as a convenient target, just as workers blame CEOs for everyday grievances. Many times, the criticisms have been justified. Yet, at other times, we were attacking the CEO for market fluctuations and unpredictable consumer habits.

Regardless of who or what is to blame for the franchise’s demise, we still owe Rick Berman praise for bringing Trek to the height of its popularity. We should thank him for taking risks, some of which worked and some of which flopped. We should commend him for shaking up the formulas and blindfolding his bust of Gene Roddenberry. And, yes, we should also criticize when deserved.

Is it time for new blood? Most definitely. Just as Trek needed a Harve Bennett and then a Rick Berman, it now needs a J.J. Abrams to take the franchise in new and bold directions. It is time to pass the torch, and Berman has so far done that graciously. But he is also writing his memoirs. Most likely, he will defend himself from the onslaught of fan criticism of the past decade. He deserves to do so, and fans should read his book with an open mind.

24th century Trek was Berman’s legacy, and it deserves respect for what it was in good times, rather than condemning it wholesale for what it was in bad times.

------------------

Comments and Reviews

History of the Dominion War, part 1

A youtuber has attempted to tell the story of the entire Dominion War in about an hour. Here's the first part.

Watch all parts here.



Comments and Reviews