After seeing what has happened to EFC and now to Andromeda, I think I finally understand what made Gene Roddenberry truly great. Though one may say that there are others who may have better ideas or are better writers than him, that is not and should not be the point. What made Gene Roddenberry truly great was his ability to get his vision and ideas through to the public. Even in the face of the kind soulless committee thinking and pointy-haired-bossism that has torn apart EFC, and now threatens to do the same to Andromeda. This is something that existed at the time the first two Star Treks were made, and yet Gene Roddenberry was able to have the series made in spite of this. Look what has taken over the so-called "Gene Roddenberry's" series since he died. That is what Gene Roddenberry was so good at preventing, and that is what made him great.
IMHO, ST:TNG didn't get good until after he left the show. The first two seasons are the worst. I'm waiting for the third to start buying the DVDs.
I love _Star Trek_, but--have you ever watched the original pilot and compared it with the rest of the episodes? There was a _huge_ change b/ca of whichever & whoever powers in charge.
Also, I thought DS9 was great.
I think it all depends on _who_ is meddling and how much.
You also have to taken into account the difference between syndication and network, and how many cooks have their hands in the pot. With Andromeda, it's syndicated, but you have Tribune and Kevin Sorbo with contractual or other stakes in it.
As far as the dichotomy in the quality of writing between DS9 and Voyager, the fact that the former was syndicated and the latter was controlled by the network certainly played into it.
I agree with Anonymous. Rick Berman and co. did a lot better than Roddenberry. As is always the way, the creator of something gets far more credit than is due him, and others too little.
Peter.
Actually to throw my opinion in i rank the series as follows
The Original Series, The Next Generation, DS9 and Voyager. I don't even consider Enterprise to be a part of the Trek universe as Berman and co have not quite captured the feel of the trek universe. I have always thought that the Roddenberry vision of Trek and those who stayed the closest to it have made the best Star Trek. Voyager was a combination of Lost in Space, Red Dwarf and Gilligan's Island. DS9 was good and had some very strong stories. This is just my opnion. You milage may vary.
I think it varies on the episode. "Living Witness" from Voyager was far better than "Spock's Brain" from TOS, but "City on the Edge of Forever" was above and beyond "Fair Haven". I think it really depends on if the writer's on top of his game at the time he's writing.
Even some of Shakespeare's plays were kinda bad.
See ya later
TUE
Generally the more a series stays near its core vision the better it is. TOS was ,for the most part, very self consistent. Kirk and co get into a mystery/trouble/action, figure out the problem and then go off to the malt shop for spock snacks. TAS was esentially the same thing only more animated. TNG was esentially TOS lite. DS9 was cool because of the intrigue/diplomacy. Voyager had neat special fx. Enterprise just doesn't feel like the trek universe. Its sorta like getting in the same kind of car but owned by somebody else. It looks the same but just doesn't feel right. Individual writers do play a major role (i have to agree about spock's brain and yes after 4yrs of english lit even shakespeare had some stinkers) but they are only as good as the vision and direction they are given. Spock's brain was done in the third season when Roddenberry had essentially moved on to other projects and wasn't really watching the store as it were. The third season had some really good points but unfortunately a lot of clunkers. Just a few thoughts.