Top 60 Quotes & Sayings by Ronald D. Moore

I guess, at the beginning of any project, I always have the same hope, which is that it's going to be wildly successful and critically acclaimed, and it'll be a major thing.

I'd argue that in the last few decades in America, when people are asked what they hope the future will look like, they still turn to 'Star Trek.' They hope we put aside our differences and come together as humanity, that we rise above war, poverty, racism, and other problems that have beset us.

When I grew up, I saw the moon landing, and I was fascinated watching them as a child, and that's what really turned me onto space and science fiction, and I started watching things like 'Lost In Space,' and that led me to 'Star Trek,' which was a major influence on my life.

The last thing I wanted to do was 'Battlestar Galactica.' I thought, 'I've done sci-fi. I did 'Blade Runner.' I don't have to do anything more.'

It's been an old saw in science fiction for a long time, since 'Frankenstein,' that we're going to create life that's going to turn on us.

The danger of serialization is that you almost get into a monotone - where they all have the same beat and pace, and it's all one long thing - and when you can kind of do this interesting mixture of episodic and serialization, you can kind of take the audience on a more interesting journey.

The original 'Star Trek' is very much a product of the '60s - the new frontier, optimism, the idea of bringing democracy to the galaxy. It's still a timeless show, but it's very much a show made in the 1960s.

Sometimes you just have to be willing to delegate and not feel like you're the only one with the answer.

What got my interested in science fiction was actually the American space program.

There's a special joy you get having a show on the air that people are interested in and wanting to know what happens next. You really want to enjoy that while you have it.

The technobabble in 'Trek' just got completely out of control.

In television, there's this weird sense of isolation from your audience; you kind of get this feeling that you write the show for you and your wife and your friends and the other people who work on the show. It's our little show, and then it goes out into the world, and somebody watches it.

There was definitely a sense that 'The Next Generation' was the 'Star Trek' stepchild that nobody liked.

'Battletar' took a while to kinda permeate out into pop culture generally. It hit first with the science-fiction fan community, then the critics, and then it kind of went to the general population.

What does it mean to be human, and what is at the human heart, and is there a soul, or is that all there is? Can an artificial being be intelligent? Is 'intelligent' the definition of humanity, or is it something deeper?

There are some good space battles in some of the later series, but that wasn't why you were tuning in every week. You were tuning in every week because Spock was a fascinating character. Because his friendship with Kirk was profound and really unusual.

Looking back now on our workload, I just shake my head at our pace. 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' was my first series, so I didn't know anything about that when I started. I just assumed it was normal to make 26 episodes a year on a seven-day shooting schedule.

'Generations,' we slaved over for a year; we worked it over and over and over again, and in the end, it just fell short.

I really wanted to write the death of Captain Kirk.

I'm an agnostic in the truest sense of the word. I think about these things - I grew up Roman Catholic, I've been interested in Hinduism, in Eastern religions, but I'm not dedicated to anything - I go through periods where I think maybe it's all nonsense; maybe it's 'The Matrix...' I'm open to various ideas.

I was very pleased with the way that the show ended creatively and personally. It just feels like we've completed the piece. And now to be able to step back a little bit and look at it from beginning to end, I feel good about the complete story that is 'Battlestar Galactica.'

Essentially, you know, one of the great advantages of working in science fiction is it does give you an opportunity to talk about interesting and somewhat controversial themes and social issues and in a way that doesn't really threaten the audience, because I'm not challenging their particular points of view.

There is not a new hopeful, optimistic vision of the future that I am currently aware of. Certainly, not one that has penetrated pop culture awareness in the way 'Star Trek' has.

I like interacting with fans, and I like hearing what they say, but you have to take it all with a grain of salt.

With 'Outlander,' definitely the book fans were at the door, ready to go, as soon as we started. But it felt like it kind of crossed over into more of a general audience rapidly. That did surprise me - I thought it would take longer for general audiences to come around.

This is my philosophy since 'Star Trek' and 'Battlestar': You have to be willing to have fandom hate what you're doing or love it and not care either way on a certain level, because you cannot become a slave to their emotion or their vote. It's not a democracy, as I'm always fond of saying.

I started my career at 'Star Trek,' and that had a huge, very vocal fan base.

I'm used to something where you have to create an entire world, and I do like that process. I like getting the audience to believe that outside of the frame of your television set, there's a whole real world that exists that is different from your day-to-day reality.

Some of the storytelling we did in 'Battlestar Galactica,' to graft that onto 'Star Trek,' it would have required changing the entire format of the show and, really, a different taste of the show.

I'm just smart enough to know what it is I don't know and try to learn as I go along and accept that you're going to make mistakes, and there are going to be things that are not going to be perfect.

I enjoyed directing, and I really found that it was a great new field to try my hand in.

I have the distinct pleasure of doing exactly what I want to do and get paid for it. It's a joy.

I felt that 'Deep Space' was the way to do a spin off series of an existing franchise where you really are doing a very different show. It's a different format. It's a different feeling.

I think I started watching 'Trek' in the mid-'70s when I was in elementary school, and I was just into space. Somewhere along the way, I started realizing there were really interesting ideas in the show.

Romance classically has tragic underpinnings to it.

You have to realize that people who bother to log on to anything and talk about a television show is a very specific fraction of the audience. It's not the general audience, so you can't get too crazy listening to just that. That's not representative, but they are the most dedicated.

As frustrating as it gets, at times, and as frustrating as it is, at times, I don't think I've ever considered doing something else, or not wanted to do it anymore. To me, it's just the greatest job. It's a good fit for who I am and what I want to be.

You never know exactly what pop cultural moment a show is going to step into.

I like interacting with fans and I like hearing what they say, but you have to take it all with a grain of salt.

And your typical TV series, you've got your police station, your apartment, the hospital, the starship, or whatever it is, and you're constantly going back to those sets and shooting, which saves you a lot of money and time. You can do that faster because you become really familiar with it and you become really good at it.

There were a lot of lessons of production to be learned. On the page, the biggest thing you learn on any TV show is how to write to your cast. You write the show at the beginning with certain voices in your head and you have a way that you think the characters will be, and then you have an actor go out there, and you start watching dailies and episodes. Then, you start realizing what they can do and what they can't do, what they're good at and what they're not so good at, how they say things and what fits in their mouth, and you start tailoring the voice of the show to your cast.

After you get a season under your belt, you learn a lot of lessons. It's a much bigger challenge, logistically, in terms of production.

Even then, I didn't quite know what to make of it [captain Kirk death]. I was mystified by why I was doing it, why I was so driven to do it, and why it was affecting me like it was. I still don't know what it means. It's a strange singular experience. I don't even know anyone to talk to about it because I don't know anyone who's had that experience.

The creative part, with the writing of it and the vision, and finding the voice of a show and the characters, is much harder to teach somebody. It's like music. You can either play it or you can't. If you can't play music and you really struggle and work hard, you can learn, but you have to have some inner gift to take it to the next level.

I'm used to something where you have to create an entire world, and I do like that process. I like getting the audience to believe that outside of the frame of your television set, there's a whole real world that exists, that is different from your day-to-day reality.

I think people are screw-ups, and even our greatest heroes are deeply flawed human beings. People make bad decisions for all the wrong reasons, and then somehow they'll do the right thing, and then somehow they'll save somebody, or they'll be compassionate. Horrible people can do wonderful things, and wonderful people can do horrible things.

The difficult notes are when they say, "And this is how we want you to fix it . . ." Just tell me what the problem is. Just tell me what the issue is, and I'll go off an fix it. It's usually when executives get to a place where they're trying to fix the problem for you that you have issues

When Kirk dies it was very emotional and very strange, in the moment and all the way through the process. I'd read it in the script and I'd always be struck by what I'd just done and what we were doing, and that this was my childhood hero and I was writing his death.

I'm always looking for vacation. I'm always trying to step away from it to watch movies. I'm always trying to carve out free time for myself. But, I love it. I don't think I've ever not wanted to run a show. When I have a show, I'm always really excited. I always enjoy the process.

I'm a writer. That's who I am, at my core. I'm a writer, and then I learned production and administration, along the way. I feel like most people can learn it because production and the administration part is all about logic, and it's all about learning rules and budgets.

When we're shooting, I commute to the UK, every three weeks or so, and that's hard. That's probably the toughest, physically, on me. It's a much longer commute than I've ever had to deal with. And then, there are the challenges of this particular production. It's not the kind of show that has standing sets.

There are definitely times when the outside eye can shine a light on something you weren't aware of. They're usually exposing a flaw or a problem. Sometimes they're saying, "Hey, this doesn't really work. Have you seen this?" And then, you go, "Oh, I didn't really see that. You're right, that doesn't work." If they're good, they shine a light on issues that you're blind to because you're too close to it.

When I finally got my break in TV, as a staff writer, I always wanted to be at the top of that pyramid. I always wanted to make the decisions. I always wanted to be the one that was saying, "This is what the show is, and this is what the show is not. This is where we're going. It's going to be this kind of series." It was just something I always had my eye on, when I started in the business.

It was difficult, and yet I was very eager to do it. It was a really odd thing. I really wanted to do that story. I really wanted to write the death of Captain Kirk. I really wanted to do it in the movie.

The flower inside the fruit that is both its parent and its child. Decadent as ancestors. The portal and that which passes. Nuclear devices activated, and the machine keeps pushing time through the cogs, like paste into strings into paste again, and only the machine keeps using time to make time to make time. And when the machine stops, time was an illusion that we created free will.

I'm always tempted in the back of my mind to continue to write things in the Star Trek universe, in the novels or the comics, just because I don't get to play in that universe and I don't get to hang out with those characters any more. You spend hours upon hours of your life, day after day sitting in writers' rooms, talking about these people and these situations, and it becomes very real to you. They're friends of yours, in a lot of ways.

I grew up as a fan of the original Star Trek series. When I was in middle school, I think in the 6th grade, I remember going to a book fair and finding a book called The Making of Star Trek, by Stephen Whitfield, and I grabbed it and took and home and just devoured it, over and over again. It was a really influential book. It was very nuts and bolts.

Writing is like that. You have to have some basic creative spark, and then, if you have that, I feel like you can learn the production side of it. You can learn how to be a good producer. And I guess it does take a certain balance of those two skills in your head to be a successful showrunner.

It's a gift. Never lend a book.

Now I know that if I'm in a fight or a big argument with executives or the studio or whoever, and it's getting to a point where it's starting to get bad, I don't have to have the fear of, "Am I strong enough to see this through? Would I really make a stand here? Would I really quit over this issue?" And I know in my heart that there is a place where I would walk away. I don't have to make it about my ego. I don't have to make it about whether I'm being strong enough or tough enough.