ENTERPRISE Is Much Better | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:32:09 on Feb 01, 2005

I just want to take this opportunity to agree with Mr. Spiner and voice my appreciation and congratulations to the ENTERPRISE cast and crew for turning the ship around. I haven't held back too much in the past when I've been critical of the show and I want to be equally vocal in my praise. This season has been really good. I was afraid all the scrambling would just lead to a series of plot gimmicks and guest stars designed as a last ditch effort to drum up fan interest without anything deeper. But instead they've handled it creatively and with some panache. The dialogue has been improved a lot too, especially what they wrote for Spiner's character.

Reply

Quote

Gene-o-vision | Report this post to moderator
By: cgrest (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:01:47 on Jan 30, 2005

I think the greatest thing about Gene's vision, and that of Star Trek, is that it's always expanding and changing, but the core is still the same.

Take TOS for example. Kirk, Spock and McCoy had this great relationship together. The show centered around that trio. And the show was fabulously written around that relationship.

Now TNG evolved around a more quiet, withdrawn Captain. But it was the rest of the crew that had relationships with each other. Picard still had this, but not to the same extent as Kirk did with Spock and McCoy.

So I get the feeling B&B just don't have what it takes to harness the Trek vision, and expand on that.

Reply

Quote

I want to like this man, I really do | Report this post to moderator
By: spacebeluga (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:23:29 on Jan 30, 2005 | (1)

Quote:
I think ENTERPRISE has hit its stride. That's something they need to be given credit for, because it takes a while to shake down. It wasn't so easy for us either. I think they have finally found their footing, and it just took a while to get it together.

The Next Generation was putting out some pretty good shows by season 2, and was a great and solid series by season 3. If Enterprise is finally good now, it's only by season 4; 3 whole years after its premier. And in any case, this argument isn't very good, considering TOS and DS9 were both great from the beginning (DS9 only became more accessable later on).

Quote:
Do you think mixing the crews from the five shows is a good idea ?

Spiner : I think it is a decent idea.

Please stop harming your credibility.

Quote:
You knew Gene Roddenberry well, Do you think he would be happy with what STAR TREK has become today ?

Spiner : For the most part, I think he would be happy with it. And I will tell you why : I can't tell you the numbers of times when we were doing the films that we wanted to do something and Rick Berman responded, "You know, that's really not Roddenberry, That's really not his vision of this, and I don't want to cross that line."

If Rick Berman actually understood Gene's "vision," then maybe this would be a useful statement. But it is clear that Berman doesn't know what he's doing. All he does is faithfully and blindly follow a set of guidelines that he can't understand. If he actually stopped and thought about just what Gene's vision is, then maybe he'd realize that it's against Gene's vision to allow Star Trek to become a silly contrived and meaningless action show with plots derivative of times when Star Trek was actually good. Since he doesn't understand this, he is content to follow pointless rules, such as the one Ron Moore described about not allowing Spock's name to be mentioned in the TNG episode "Sarek," the fact that he still talks about "Gene's vision" merely shows how ignorant he is.

Quote:
People who say Rick has forgotten Gene's vision and tried to create his own STAR TREK are way off base.

He didn't try to, it's just what happened. I'm not among the group of people who claim there's some sort of evil plot because Berman "hates Star Trek."

Reply

Quote

• RE: I want to like this man, I really do | Report this post to moderator
  By: cooper2000 (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:25:06 on Jan 31, 2005

  Funny, Spiner didnt want anything to do with the franchise a few years ago (Isnt that why he wanted Data killed off?) Now he has appeared in Enterprise and wants to do another movie? Jobs running dry Spiner?
  Although I do like the mixing of the different crews (maybe all 5 captains) I could care less about Spiner. His ego and how large he has insisted his part be in the movies and that's great for him but not for the picture as a whole.
  He is right, retire Trek for a few years and then get some new Producers and Writers and come back with a Bang.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: I want to like this man, I really do | Report this post to moderator
    By: spacebeluga (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:10:44 on Jan 31, 2005

    One thing I have never understood about internet message boards is how posters like to criticize the moral character of people they've never met.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

You know, Brent is right | Report this post to moderator
By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:53:53 on Jan 30, 2005

As much as I dislike Rick Berman for running Trek into the ground, I have to say that much of post Roddenberry Trek with the exception of DS9 stayed true to Roddenberry's vision of a more perfect Humanity and using other Aliens to portray humanity's faults and characteristics. The problem is that people grew tired of this method of storytelling, and ol B&B did not realize this until it was to late

--------

Reply

Quote

• He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
  By: Bella Oxmyx (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:42:23 on Jan 30, 2005

  B&B's problem is that they decided not to stray from the old styles of storytelling at all . There's nothing wrong with updating the way you tell a story -- think how boring it would be if a show like "The Wire" was done in the style of "Dragnet" or "Hawaii 5-0"! -- so long as you keep the spirit of the series intact. And in that regard, while B&B have always paid lip service to Roddenberry's dreams and ideals, I don't think they ever quite captured his passion for them.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
    By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:59:45 on Jan 30, 2005

    Well, you can never have everything. Generally I like the way B&B have shaped Star Trek since Roddenberrys death and I don't care how many people disagree with me about that! It's all subjective. What I really hate is when people claim they know it all, as if they are objective and the rest of us are idiots. Well, there are good things and bad things accompaning every choice, every decision in life. You can never have everything!
    
    Expanding the world of Star Trek is necessary and natural, of course. But it's obviously a very fine balance. Every little change will upset someone. Read these boards for proof. I think the current situation was unavoidable! People are SO demanding these days and they don't even realise it. That's something I will never understand.
    
    But I think we've been lucky to have Rick Berman to provide stability over the years, in terms of tone and content in Star Trek (for this I will be attacked). Well, he may be more loyal towards Gene, than he is inventive. But people blind themselves if they think Rick Berman doesn't care about Star Trek, and claim he is incompetent. On the contrary, he is not a rebel. He keeps Star Trek within the established boundaries. Boundaries that are quite clearly defined and not too restrictive. It's really no good to wander off and become as bad as "normal" entertainment these days. Well. If people can't see how harmful modern entertainment generally is, how morally unacceptable, and how weak, I won't even try to explain.
    
    But it's clear that Star Trek should not follow all the trends of time. Unfortunately the result may be, that people find it oldfashioned, boring, falling behind, lacking imagination, becoming stale, whatever! So kill it off! But don't make a mess of it, just to be considered "cool".

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
      By: Bella Oxmyx (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:20:24 on Jan 30, 2005

      Hbasm, you're always defending the status quo in your posts. And while you try to defend your arguments from attack by saying "it's all subjective," you criticize the stuff you don't like in absolutist terms, such as "morally unacceptable." (By the way, that particular criticism has been leveled at every creative work that upsets hidebound reactionaries, including TOS).
      
      Change doesn't always lead to destruction; sometimes change leads to growth. When Roddenberry created TNG, for example, there were fans who were outraged that a series was being contemplated without TOS cast. There were those who hated the idea of a bald Frenchman as captain of the Enterprise, and who scoffed at the idea of a Klingon ever serving aboard a Federation ship. But Roddenberry understood that merely cloning TOS would lead to stagnation, and at any rate he was ambitious enough to want to explore the concepts from the TOS in a more in-depth manner. The result was a show that was unique and had its own voice, but was still unmistakably Star Trek. And those elements of the show people at first disliked -- the French captain, the Klingon member of Starfleet -- have become two of the most beloved characters of the franchise.
      
      Change is coming whether you want it to or not, Hbasm. Blaming "the fans" and moral decline isn't going to stop it from happening. I find your attitude curious, since one of Trek's messages is that we should embrace change, and act from a sense of optimism, not fear.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
        By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:58:53 on Jan 30, 2005 | (1)

        But do you really think there is a remote chance, the audience will accept anymore changes to Trek? It seems every time there is a change, someone is heading for the door, and noone takes his place. So the audience is shrinking and this has been going on for the last 10 years, even though Star Trek has tried pretty much everything to prevent it. Now we are down to critically low numbers. I think the bashers have become so crippled by their own hatred, they can nolonger adjust. When I look at how stale the current audience for Star Trek has become, it's clear that TNG's popularity was a series of lucky events. Todays bashers say they want changes, yet they won't change their mind. Nothing will satisfy them as a whole. They have no appetite, like in the days of TNG.

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
          By: Bella Oxmyx (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:38:50 on Jan 30, 2005

          Quote:
          But do you really think there is a remote chance, the audience will accept anymore changes to Trek?
          
          From the way you say this it sounds like you think that the audience has been leaving because Trek isn't exactly the same as it was ten years ago (ie, a show about the TNG).
          
          I think it's the opposite. People liked TNG because it offered them something they hadn't seen before in a Trek series: evolving characters in an more richly developed universe, exploring Roddenberry's themes of growth and humanity. But even that series couldn't go on forever. I mean, who would want to watch the exact same thing over and over? The reason we say writers and actors and other artists have to be creative is because they are expected to weave innovation into their craft, to give the audience something they really haven't seen before.
          
          Quote:
          It seems every time there is a change, someone is heading for the door, and noone takes his place.
          
          The changes that occurred to the series coming after TNG, with the exception of DS9, were all superficial. They took the basic plot elements from TNG and TOS, changed either the spatial setting (Voyager) or temporal setting (Enterprise), and then churned out story after story without really fleshing out characters, creating an interesting universe, or developing themes. No wonder people got tired of Trek.
          
          Quote:
          I think the bashers have become so crippled by their own hatred, they can nolonger adjust.
          
          Just because a few bashers on this board are very vocal, doesn't mean they reflect the potential fan base as a whole. Most people who have turned away from Trek just tuned out; they didn't focus all their time and energy on bashing the show. If that base could be convinced that Trek would offer them something new again, give them that sense of wonder that only good science fiction can provide, I have every confidence that a good number would come back.
          
          Enterprise is making good strides this year, but unfortunately not enough to get through the preconceptions people already formed about the show in its first few seasons. It would take something big, like major PR or a brand new series, to get people to re-focus on Trek again. The trick is to give them innovative storytelling that still stays true to Roddenberry's vision, once you've got their attention.

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
            By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:29:49 on Jan 31, 2005

            Well, I agree with some of what you're saying. I just have one more question: How do you explain that the ratings for DS9 dropped as well, even though the show demonstrated real growth? In terms of ratings, DS9 is no exception: The curve has been falling since TNG ended.
            
            I know many people gave up on DS9. I think the show was really challanging sometimes but fortunately I was able to adjust. I may not be so lucky next time, who knows. Anyway, it seems that changing Star Trek hurts, and not changing it hurts as well. The ratings just keep going down. I suppose the outsiders (the non-Trekkers) have already made up their mind about Star Trek and are unwilling to sample the newer shows. The brand name turns them off.

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: He's right and he's wrong | Report this post to moderator
              By: Bella Oxmyx (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:35:59 on Jan 31, 2005

              I love DS9. It's tied as my second-favorite Trek series, along with the TOS, behind TNG. But the show started off slowly in its first few seasons. Basing the show on a station made the characters seem either passive or reactive, as adventures and guest characters had to come to the station, instead of the crew going out to engage them. And the whole Bajor/Cardassian occupation arc never really took off in the way I think the producers had initially hoped. The show didn't really find its way until the war with the Founders broke out.
              
              Perhaps a more significant reason for the show's lesser ratings than TNG (although they were still fairly impressive) was that the show was darker. DS9 liked exploring humanity's flaws, and while I certainly appreciated the grit and substance that approach gave the show, I can see why some people don't consider DS9 "real" Trek. I wouldn't recommend that any future re-vamp of Trek go further down that road, certainly -- the risk would be you would lose the heart and soul of Trek.
              
              That's not to say I mind a dark approach to SF in general, though. Ron D. Moore has continued DS9's exploration of human frailty in the new BSG series, and I think it works fantastically there. I just think it would be a very tough act to balance really dark material with the optimistic message of Star Trek.

              
              

              Reply

              Quote