Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/21/97 10:38:18 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<any word around the offices concerning whether or not  Paramount might hop
into the DVD format now that Universal and Disney (especially DIsney, they're
the heavy hitters in home video) have commited to the format?>>

I am so out of touch with that part of Paramount that I don't even know where
their offices are.

<<My wife and I were talking last night about O'Brien's experiences in "Hard
Time" and wondering why he seemed to recover from his ordeal so quickly.
 DS9's usually really good about following up on story threads and showing
consequences of past events (eg  -- Nog refusing to turn his back on Garak in
"Rocks & Shoals"), but what happened to the  Chief was never mentioned or
dealt with again.  Why not? >>

There hasn't been a comfortable place to mention O'Brien's "Hard Time"
experience without having to throw in a lot of awkward exposition.  It may
come up again at some point.

<<I was wondering how "Area 51" is going.  It'll be interesting to see what
your style is in a non-trek teleplay.  Do you have trouble finding time
between writing and producing for DS9 to take other projects?>>

Brannon and I have begun work (finally) on the screenplay.  It's a fun change
of pace for us.  My weekends are now full.

<<A piece of film footage that is cut from a movie, say the spacesuit scene
with Kirk from Generations , to whom does it belong? the actors, director,
producers,  or Viacom? Is it stil considered part of a film legally?>>

It all belongs to Viacom, but the actors, director and writer would all have
to be compensated if they chose to reuse the footage in some way.

<<Why is Keevan so afraid to die?  Won't he just be cloned, or is that just
reserved for high-ranking Vortas?>>

Although Keevan may at some point be slated for cloning by the Dominion, the
individual seen in "Rocks and Shoals" would be dead and that certainly did
not appeal to Keevan.

<<Does Paramount still accept Star Trek scripts from first time writers??>>

As of this moment, the answer is still yes.  But that could change at any
time, so I suggest you submit your script quickly.
Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/21/97 10:46:55 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<A friend says a vital scene (vital to Dukatophiles, that is) was cut from
"Sons & Daughters" ...
They removed an ENTIRE scene.  From what I've been told, Dukat was supposed
to say [after Kira's "interstellar despot" line]:

Dukat:  "I prefer the term tyrant."  Then he was supposed to tell Kira how he
intends to have Damar escort Ziyal to the party.  Kira gets upset and says
"You're not serious!"  Then she says something to the effect of Damar not
liking Bajorans and how he sneers everytime he says the word!  Dukat denies
it.  He tells her how Damar is a good officer from a good family.  Shortly,
Damar enters the office to inform Dukat that some Bajorans want to use their
own transports to transfer materials to Bajor.  Damar sneers everytime he
mentions Bajor or Bajorans and Kira steals a glance at Dukat and starts laughi
ng.  Damar glowers at her, but continues with his report. Dukat can't take it
anymore and joins Kira in laughter at Damar's expense.  

Dukat dismisses Damar and Kira and Dukat laugh again. Then Dukat agrees with
Kira, telling her she's right and how Damar may not be the right one to
escort his half-Bajoran (Dukat sneers) daughter to the party.  This cracks up
Dukat and Kira again.  So, the next time you see Damar, he's delivering a
dress to Kira, much to his distate.  

WOW!  Ron, if the rumors about what's going to happen are correct, and if you
did cut this scene, you've dumped a whole lot of backstory that would help us
understand some of the motivation for upcoming actions, particularly on
Damar's part.  I've picked up on the hatred between Kira and Damar--it seems
she despises him even more than she does Dukat, and now I know why.  But why
was this good stuff cut (if it was)?>>

This scene was shot and it was cut for time.  You may argue that we should've
to chop.  (Yes, we did need the final blood-letting scene, because the show
couldn't have ended with the scene of Worf and Alexander in the Corridor --
the scene wasn't shot that way and it wouldn't have worked. Trust me.)  On
the other hand, the Dukat/Kira tale would work just fine without the rest of
the Dukat/Kira scene that was excised.

<<Was Alexander's appearance in "Sons and Daughters" a one time only
appearance or will he be appearing on a recurring basis on the show?   And
also I have heard that Alexander will not at the wedding.  Is there any
special reason as to why he will not be there? >>

Alexander is definitely in the wedding show.  Beyond that, we're not sure,
but he could recur again this year.

<<Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.  Any chance you would
do a guest shot on John Ordover's Board?  It would be fun to hear your view
of the Literary side.  Are you familiar with the SNW Contest?  Any chance of
Brannon doing a guest appearance on your board? >>

I haven't read the ST books in so long that I don't think I could contribute
anything useful to John's Board.  Brannon does his own thing on the net from
time to time.  I'm not sure what SNW stands for.

<<Ron, does any of what we dream up here on these boards ever have an effect
on the actual productions?>>

Well, it all goes into my brain so there's probably some influence on my
subconscious along with everything else.  The only direct impact I'm aware of
is my determination to do something with the portrayal of Klingon women --
which had a big impact on the way I wrote "You are Cordially Invited..."
Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/21/97 11:40:26 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<Do everyone a favor, Brannon.  Quit.  Go write a sitcom somewhere.  And
never show your face on a Star Trek production again.  You've done enough

You have a choice here.  You can either keep this kind of thing off my board
or be prepared to deal with my response to it.  And my response is to tell
you that you've got have a big pair of brass ones to puff yourself up as
someone to tell Brannon what to do.  Brannon co-wrote "All Good Things..."
has a Hugo to prove it and an Emmy nomination hanging on his wall.  Brannon
wrote "Frame of Mind", "Cause and Effect", "Parallels", "Ship in a Bottle"
and a lot of other exceptional TNG episodes.   Brannon has been working his
tail off day in and day out for the last three seasons trying to give YOU yet
one more Trek series.  Brannon has earned his spurs on this franchise and if
you don't like his attitude toward TOS or Trek continuity that's just too
@#$%ing bad.  

I'm a fan of the orginal series and he's not.  Big deal.  I've worked with
him for seven years and I never once told him that he absolutely had to go
and watch Kirk & Co. in order to write TNG or VOY.  Why?  Because it was the
truth and he's proven that.  Yeah, he has a chip on his shoulder toward
fandom.  Why shouldn't he?  He has to put up with a lot of name-calling and
bitching from people who seem to only care about how many angels can dance on
the head of a transtator and whether or not Chakotay falling in the forest
would make a sound.  He has not exactly been welcomed into the loving embrace
of IDIC (and don't give me any of that "Well, he started it!" stuff either).

People don't like the fact that Brannon doesn't bow and scrape before the
original series like they want him to, but I respect him for it.  He's
listening to his own muse and charting his own direction for Voyager and
we'll see where it leads.   You don't like it?  Don't watch it.   I'll tell
you this -- Voyager is the highest rated show on either UPN or WB and it
looks to be around for a long time still, so I think he's doing just fine so

<<I would like to ask your opinion on the feasibility of DS9 on the movie

The studio has said nothing about DS9 movies, but from a story-telling
standpoint, it really depends on how we end the series.  We could end the
show on a note of finality, wrapping everything up with the characters, or
leaving it like TNG with the stories presumably continuing beyond the final
episode.  So far, we haven't made a decision one way or the other.

<<Would it be safe to say that "Waltz" has some link (structurally,
thematically, whatever) to "Duet," and is this possibly the "intriguing Dukat
story" you mentioned?>>

This is indeed the Dukat story I've mentioned before.  There's a certain
thematic link with "Duet" and that in part inspired the title.

<<Any plans for expanding Jake a bit?>>

We have a big Sisko/Jake episode on the boards for later in the year, but
it's still in the early conceptual stage.

<<Hows does the relationship work between your show and the motion pictures?
I read that the producters of DS9 got mad at the ST: FC producers for wanting
to destroy the Defiant in the Borg battle scene, and so I was wondering if
DS9 was at the mercy of the motion picture Trek writer's or if they had to
get YOUR guys approval/consultation on things that directly related to DS9?>>

The Defiant was never going to be destroyed in FC.  I showed Ira an early
draft and he objected to the fact that we didn't make it clear enough that
the ship was still salvagable, so we changed the dialog to reflect that note.
 Certainly anything that would affect DS9 would probably be run by Ira again
on this next movie.

<<Are we going to see any follow up on Jake Sisko's story [Anslem]?  >>

We'll keep throwing in stuff on this from time to time.

<<I was wondering if [Majel] will reprise Lwaxanna on DS9 again.  Any

No plans for Lwaxanna this year so far.
Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/21/97 11:58:45 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<First of all, are there any plans for Jadzia and Worf to have children? >>

Not yet, but you never know...

<<Secondly, a LONG time ago Kira promised Tom Riker that she would find a way
to save him...from the cardassian prison.  So when is she?>>

Still no plans to rescue Tom yet.

<<Thirdly, why does Ducat have an attraction for Bajoran women?>>

I think it's because the Bajorans were once under his control and he has
certain, ah.... control issues.  Kira being the one Bajoran who he could
never control only increases his desire for her.

<<I think that the fans have a right to a sense of ownership over Trek. I
think we're entitled to that.>>

I don't and I'm a fan.  There is no "fandom" that speaks with one voice and
you've got to stop believing that there is.  Fans and fan opinions come in
many different forms and guises and there is just no way that Paramount or
the writer/producers can concievably be responsive to the "fan owners."  The
only person who could've once claimed this kind of proprietary interest was
Gene, and he's dead.  Trek belongs to everyone, not just the hardcore fans
and not just the writers.

<<I saw your comment about Kira being an ex-terrorist who essentially had a
rank slaped on her when the Occupation ended.  My question is, have you made
any assumptions about Kira's educational background? >>

We treat her like a reasonably educated person in the 24th century, but I've
never really sat down and tried to figure out exactly where and when Kira
could've obtained this education.

<<In the recent Worf episode, the Klingon ship had little trouble with at
least two Jem H. ships, when the "last 3" convoys were wiped out.  Has the
military balance shifted? Finally, is the Federation "mobilized?" That is,
shipyards working round the clock, conscription (since ground combat, or at
least garrisoning territory, seems important), etc.? >>

I think that while the strategic situation is running against the Federation,
that the tactical balance of power probably varies wildly depending on the
situation.  We don't know any of the circumstances regarding the last three
convoys that were destroyed so it's hard to compare them to the battle seen
in "Sons and Daughters."  I do think the Federation is fully mobilized, but I
don't know about conscription.
Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/22/97 1:26:18 AM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<Since Brannon doesn't care about the original show, he wouldn't know IDIC
from IHOP.>>

Now there's the true spirit of IDIC for you.  

<< <Voyager is the highest rated show on either UPN or WB and it looks to be
around for a long time still, so I think he's doing just fine so far.>

UPN or WB?  That's like saying Voyager is the fourth most popular Trek

No, it's like saying that Voyager is doing very well, thank you, is obviously
being watched and appreciated on a regular basis, and will continue to be
produced.  In fact, that's exactly what I said.

<<Actually, he should remember TOS gave him his job.  If he doesn't like the
show, he should not be associated with him...Since he doesn't like Star Trek,
he doesn't care about giving US another Trek series.  >>

Actually, he hasn't watched much TOS and therefore neither likes nor dislikes
it.  And the second statement is an outright falsehood.

Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/22/97 6:12:59 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<Ron, do you have any idea on how you want to see the Dominion Arc end?>>

I do have some ideas, but I'd rather not give them away just yet.

<< I know that the probability of the Borg being on DS9 is slight to none,
but nonetheless, any idea on what happened to the renegade Borg that Lore
lead?  How's Hugh doing?>>

Unfortunately, I haven't given any thought to either of these Borg groups, so
I'm not sure what they're up to.

<<have you ever seen "The Wonder Years?>>

I watched it for a while during its first year, but then I dropped out.  

<<When is Area 51 scheduled to be completed? >>

There's no start date for filming yet and no release date.

<< Cinefantastique, November 1997, pg. 110:

"... How much fun would it have been to go back to Earth and have to explain
to 98 percent of the viewing audience what the hell the Eugenic Wars are?

"Did we think about it?  Yeah.  We just made a conscious choice not to
address this.  It was going to bog down the episode.  When you make a
decision like this, it's not out of ignorance, or the fact that we don't care
about continuity.  It comes out of the fact that you need to make some tough
choices..." >>

Thanks for posting this quote.  To me, this says that Brannon & Co. did not
make their choice in "Future's End" out of malice or disregard for the fans.
 They considered all the options and made an informed choice for the best
interests of their show.  I think it's fair for people to question that
choice or argue over the impact it had on Voyager and Trek continuity.
 What's not fair, in my book, is to say that the decision was made out of
some kind of casual disregard for Trek and its continuity.  They obviously
discussed the issue at length and then made their choice.  

I think you should remember that Brannon's influence on the Trek you know and
love has not been limited to the episodes on which his writing credit
appears.  He was a part of the writing staff(s) since the fourth season of
TNG and had a hand in virtually every show that went before the cameras. 

As far as Brannon's comments in various publications go, I think he enjoys
pushing people's buttons sometimes and let's face it, some fans can have
pretty thin skins.  Sometimes I wish he'd use a little more tact, but I think
some of the fans could also cut him a little more slack, so there seems to be
an even playing field in that particular relationship.

<<How many ships does Starfleet have?  I know you dont like giving any
specific numbers but it seems like they would have many.  The earliest NCC we
have seen on a ship that is still in use is aroung NCC 42000 something, the
Lakota, or the Hood, im not sure.  So if Voyager is 76656 then does that mean
every ship from 42000 to (probably 80000 since Voyager is 4 years old) is
still around?  That would be about 38,000 ships, but if you minus 8000 or so
for whatever reasons, shouldnt Starfleet still have 30,000 or so ships

I think your reasoning is pretty sound and I wouldn't be surprised if
Starfleet had 30,000 ships or so, but again -- we're not going to nail down
this figure on the series.

<<First off I loved ["Sons and Daughters"] and it is deadlocked with "Rocks
and Shoals" as my favorite DS9 episode so far this season. My two quick
questions are 1) what is the apperent age of Alexander, and 2) Will Alexander
be a regular, semi-regular, or hardly seen?>>

We're pegging Alexander as being roughly the equivalent of a 13-16 year old
human male, although his actual age is much younger.  Hey, Klingons mature
faster, okay?  Alexander will be seen in the wedding show, and possibly more
this season.
Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/22/97 6:43:11 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

"... one of the challenges in compiling this chronology was to deal with the
inevitable gaps and inconsistencies that have cropped up over STAR TREK's
three decade of existence... In our eyes, the fact that the show's writers
and producers were quite capable of mistakes in no way diminishes their
extraordinary achievements under the often-brutal pressures of weekly
television production."

-- Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda, Introduction, "Star Trek Chronology -- The
History of the Future."

<<Ron, recently, someone online voiced the opinion that William Shatner
shared responsibility with you, Braga, and Berman for "Kirk" being in, and
dying in, Generations.
I find that an odd assertion, as Shatner just accepted a job, and frankly, as
an actor who is not involved in the behind the scenes creative process, has
no obligation to the audience, as I feel the writer does.>>

In this particular situation, Rick, Brannon and I all sat down with Bill and
talked with him in detail about the subject of Kirk's death.  If he had not
been committed to both the idea and the way in which we intended to portray
the demise of the character, I can assure you that it would've never
happened.  That's not an effort to shift responsibility, by the way.  I
believed strongly in what we were doing and would've tried to talk Bill into
it even if he had objected.

<<With this next ST feature, Patrick Stewart has even MORE control over his
character.... do you find circumstances like that hindering? >>

I really can't speak to the next film and Patrick's involvement in the
creative process.  I can say that an actor can often bring an important
perspective to the process and it's usually a question of the specific actor
in question and how s/he handles her/himself in dealing with the writers as
to whether or not it's a help or a hindrance.

<<We have seen how easy it is for a Klingon woman to divorce her mate.  She
decks him, snarls a few ritual words at him, spits on him -- and she's
divorced.  So why did Grilka put up with her useless petaQ of a mate for so
long?  Was she bound by the terms of a mating-contract, perhaps until an heir
had been produced?  And if it is so easy to rid oneself of a mate, why would
she be stuck with her new owner?  And most bizarre: why would any Klingon
warrior woman even agree to become property of some male's House in the first

I thought that Grilka wielded considerable power as the Mistress of a Great
House and that this more than made up for the problems in her marriage to
Kozak.  Since she clearly divorced Quark once her goal was accomplished,
there's no reason to think she'd have been "stuck" with any other mate.  I
also don't think there's any implication of a woman being considered the
"property" of a House.  Grilka says, "If the leader of a House is slain in
honorable combat, the victor may be *invited* to take his place... and his
wife."  (Emphasis added.)  If Grilka had not wished to marry Quark, she would
not have been forced to marry D'Ghor, she would've simply had to forfeit the
lands and other property of the former House of Kozak.

<< how do you tread the line between letting casual comments and conversation
subconsciously feed your imagination, and the concern that you might be
"stealing" someone else's idea?>>

First, I make it a policy not to accept any story ideas or pitches on these
boards.  Second, I rely on my own conscience to stay on this side of the

<<Is there anything in particular you do when you need a shot of inspiration
in the middle of a story?   Reading?  Exercise?  A visit to Brannon's office?
 Do you have little quotes or pictures around your office?>>

I usually procrastinate until I have the scene or dialog worked out in my
mind to my satisfaction.  When that doesn't work, I'll just put down
*something* and then hope to fix it in my next pass through the script.  I do
keep books and music here in the office for distraction, but there's nothing
specific I look to for inspiration.
Subj:  Answers
Date:  10/22/97 6:54:22 PM
From:  RonDMoore       

<<there is also an interview with David Gerrold in the latest CFQ magazine.
 He makes some comments about his treatment during the development of T&T (he
was kept out of the loop), and his reasons for appealing the WGA's credit
arbitration (essentially, he says, to set a precedent for such "Gumping" of
old scripts).  This may be something you rather not touch with a proverbial
ten-foot pole, but as a fellow writer and WGA member, what are your feelings
about the way Mr. Gerrold was handled?>>

I don't want to get into the details of this, but I have a very clear
conscience about the way we handled this matter and I think David was treated
more than fairly at every point in the process.

<<You've said before there are no plans to do another T&T-type episode.
 BUT... if Paramount came and said, "That was such a great episode, do
another one," do you have any ideas as to where you'd personally like to see
Sisko & Co. to visit next?>>

We did consider several other episodes as possible candidates for the
anniversary show and we never found another one that appealed to us.  I doubt
we'd want to do it again given the limitations of the other TOS episodes.

<<Columbia House is now releasing the DS9 episodes.  Ron, could they put the
footage back in?  Do you know if they release the episodes exactly as they
were shown, or if they re-edit them?  If so, do you make ALL the footage
available? >>

As far as I know, there are no plans to release additional footage on any of
the television episodes.  I've never spoken with Paramount Home Video (and
I'm sure they're grateful for that) so I don't know the hows and whys of what
they choose to release.

GrangerDon wrote:

<<Which brings us back to Shatner. The facts are (and I can say that because
I was in the room(s)): Shatner embraced and committed to the idea of dying at
the end of the film. He thought it was a "great idea" (direct quote). He had
an opportunity to change his mind for an alternate ending, and turned it

I just wanted to add that I forgot to mention that Don was in fact there
during these meetings and that his memory is better than mine (as usual),
since both the Shatner quote and the alternate ending suggestion did indeed
Previous chat Chat index Next chat


Stream the best stories.


Get Disney+