I think we might be able to indirectly thank George Lucas for this prequel fad. Seems as though ever since he did the Star Wars prequels which were successful financially, Paramount did the same - maybe. Now we have the prequels Enteprise. Lucas may also be indirectly responsible for other impacts on Star Trek. Back in the 1970s, Paramount was planning a new TOS TV series with most of the original crew (Captain Kirk and etc.) called Phase Two. They were even going to use this to launch UPN - in the 1970s! Then came the blockbuster hit Star Wars. Paramount execs thought, "Oh no, we are going to do our own sci-fi movie, and make a lot of money." So they scrapped the TV series, wasting 100s of thousands of dollars, and redressed the TV sets for the movie. If it wasn't for Star Wars, I don't think that Star Trek the Motion Picture would had been made.
--------
Glistening green, almost like secret dreams a bored ship captain might have.
Unique, unusual, and sometimes bizarre - [l]drewsstew.com[el]
70's and 80's TV shows are being re-made left and right and the BSG folks have some sort of special reason for doing their remake that's different from the reasons for all the other remakes? Sure....
Along with wire-fu SFX, and the clash of massive CG armies, remakes and "prequels" are just the big faddish thing right now, and BSG jumped right on the remake bandwagon.
To say that Star Trek only gets the science fiction portion of the equation right is to misunderstand why it was ever successful.
--------
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" - Justice Scalia
...for any of this BSG vs. Star Trek bull. I haven't seen it, and I haven't seen heard anything about it to indicate that it has become as ingrained in pop-culture as Star Trek has.
I love Ron D. Moore and all(especially for DS9), but the truth is, it's got a long way to go before we can start comparing ST to that show. 40 years of Star Trek and a huge franchise isn't so easily replaced. When BSG lasts for 4 decades, survives 4 spinoffs(and the franchise will survive the cancellation of Enterprise, BTW), lands 10 movies, and has loads upon loads of software, video games, books, and collectible merchandise we'll see. It would have a lot of ground to cover.
BTW, I'm hardly shocked to hear Picard being called a pompous ass. I've thought that on more than one occasion.
I just hope that Paramount execs don't actually try to do a "reinterpretation" of Star Trek if they do another series. Continuing the saga rather than reimagining is what has worked for Star Trek. As a matter of fact, as far as I see it, that's where Enterprise stumbled. It didn't continue the saga, it went backward.
-
Well, maybe you should check it out.
Truth is, Franchise or not, BSG is still better than Trek has been for years and it has nothing to do whether it is reimagined, it is just solid storytelling and interesting characters not to mention a hard edge. When is the last time you saw that on either Voyager or Enterprise?
-
VGR and ENT under B&B's control was abysmal, but this year of Enterprise has been pretty good. The books that Pocket Books cranks out have been great. There's still life.
As far as BSG, I'm not against giving the show a chance(tell me when it's on and I'll watch it). But I'm just not going to go around proclaiming it's the next Star Trek when the show is only months old and the same has been said in the past about Farscape and Stargate. Just way too early to say something like that. Only time will tell, and we'll have to wait until BSG has ended its run until we see if it has the same kind staying power Star Trek has had.
-
I don't agree with this mentality at all. After watching the First Contact commentary, I have to agree that Star Trek is starting to become trapped in its self. Trying to keep track of 40 years worth of date of when stuff happened must be pretty damn hard for the writers. I can't imagine what it would be like after a few more movies or series. One thing that gets me is how everyone expects the character's to remember the EXACT dates of stuff that for them happened over a 100 years ago. Ask a person in the military today when some of the biggest battles of WW2 happend and most of them won't know. I think it makes it MORE realistic that they get the dates off a little bit. Anyways if the storys were good, the acting good I wouldnt mind a retelling of it at all.
--------
"I'd write my senator/congressman about this....but I can't find my checkbook."
-
I think I know what you mean(this is kind of an interesting topic over whether the next series should or shouldn't be a reinterpretation), and I'm not much of a stickler for continuity per se. I don't think the characters need to know exactly what they ate for breakfast 3 years ago or who fought what at where. But it's simply the idea that the story is moving forward(like real life) that I'm most interested in.
Continuity is only a problem when there are people in charge of a show who don't know how to handle it. For example, DS9 and VGR ran at the same time and had the same huge amount of history to draw on. DS9 embraced the history of Star Trek far more than VGR did, but ran into far, far fewer problems keeping a fresh edge on things. TPTB just need to know how to turn Star Trek's rich history into their advantage rather than seeing it as a handicap.
The fact that Star Trek has such a rich "history" to draw on is what sets it apart from every other fictional series on television. Taking that away just because other sci-fi series do takes away part of what makes Star Trek unique.
BSGs not bad, but it's only marginally a science fiction show, with little charm. As for Kirk and Picard being pompous, at least Kirk had a sense of humour. Little on the extremely super serious BSG qualifies. Also, have 15 contiguous plots, mood tinting on the film and a political plot (far less complex than Babylon 5) doesn't necessarily make for great drama. But it is excellently done, I'll give them that. I still like Commander Cain though. Also, what they've done to Star Trek is much in line with what they've done to this, removal of all the humour, color, and grand scale. Yes, sometimes the old BSG was shockingly dumb, but it was entertaining. Wasn't the original BSG cancelled because of high costs?
-
The only problem I see with BSG is that while the show is excellent, it has absolutely no repeat value for me. I don't like watching re-runs because once you watch the show once, you really have seen everything. That's not the case with other SciFi shows like Enterprise, SG-1, Firefly and Farscape.
I'm personally just sick and tired of all this damn crap period. I dont care. Star Trek is Star Trek and Battlestar.... is Battlestar..... I like them both. You dont have to mention one show when talking about the other. Its just the TV exexcutives and now the fans taking sides that shouldnt even exist. ]
Calling BSG a success and ENT a failure is really stretching the truth but the worst part is when some "trekkers" go on and praise BSG and didn't have much positive to say about ENT. Then get outta here, once and for all! Its like betraying your loved one, and sleeping with another woman. I'm committed to Trek and I live in a monogame relationship with Trek. I won't be involved with a non-Trek show. No chance! Those of you who disagree with me, so be it, but you should know what it means to be a true trek fan.
-
GEt outta here?
Jevenile!
Seems like you are still in denial. You can stand by Enterprise all you want but the fact is, if it had been better it might be back for another year. You are one of the few that embraced it but is that because you thought it was good or just because you are loyal to Trek.
I played that game all through Voyager. I kept saying, it's Trek, I need to stand behind it even though it wasnt good and I decided when Enterprise came on and let me down with the same lazy storytelling that I wasnt going to be duped again. I am guessing that most people thought that. We gave them the benefit of the doubt with Voyager but most people gave up after Enterprise turned out to be much the same.
Time to grow up now and be objective Hbasm.
-
Personally, I find it a little creepy when people talk about having a "relationship" with a TV show. I like Star Trek and almost all of its "sequels". I've been a fan since the original series premiered in 1966, but it's one of MANY shows I've enjoyed watching over the years.
I'm a fan of the new BSG too, but I'm intelligent and perceptive enough NOT to compare it to Star Trek. It's apples and oranges. It's like comparing "Starsky and Hutch" with "Miami Vice." Both are cop shows, both center around two partners, but stylistically, both couldn't be any more different. And I'm a fan of both as well.
--------
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cigar in one hand, favorite beverage in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!"
-
Quote:
Calling BSG a success and ENT a failure is really stretching the truth
No. BSG is an unqualified success, garnering for a cable station higher number than ENT could manage on a "free" station. And, ya know another difference? People are excited about BSG. It has people talking, people checking it out.
How many people have been excited about ENT since Broken Bow??? Not many. What's to get excited about??? Two dimensional people you can't relate to because their actions make no sense. Characters that exist to service the script???
No thanks.
In BSG the characters matter. Stories are written anround the people, not the other way around just so we can fill 43 minutes.
BSG is different. Not everyone's cup of tea, granted, but in every measurable sense it's superior to ENT...and Voyager for that matter. I may not buy the notion that it's the best sci-fi series ever...but it's the best on TV today. As I said in the BSG room, even knowing the spoilers for the finale it was so well-crafted I STILL jumped when the first shot was fired.
That is the product you get when people actually care about what goes on screen.
Quote:
but the worst part is when some "trekkers" go on and praise BSG and didn't have much positive to say about ENT
I have plenty of positives to point out about ENT....S4. It is what S1 should have been. The first 3 were swill. Period. And I resent you. I'm a Trekker. Have been watching TOS since the age of 5...was there to see every hour produced since.
I love GOOD Trek, always have and always will.You really ARE a troll because apparently you WOULD watch Star Trek: The Stick Figure Cartoon if that's what they gave you.
I, on the other hand would argue that's what we got already with most of ENT.
Quote:
Then get outta here, once and for all!
In response I offer the words of the immortal Col. Jack O'Neill: Bite me.
Quote:
Its like betraying your loved one, and sleeping with another woman. I'm committed to Trek and I live in a monogame relationship with Trek. I won't be involved with a non-Trek show. No chance
Then you're missing out. Then, in fact, when you know NOTHING of what you speak you are in NO POSITION AT ALL to slam BSG or any other show.
Quite frankly, the above statement shreds your credibility and honestly causes me to question your relationship with reality.
Seek help.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
Quote:
Calling BSG a success and ENT a failure is really stretching the truth but the worst part is when some "trekkers" go on and praise BSG and didn't have much positive to say about ENT. Then get outta here, once and for all! Its like betraying your loved one, and sleeping with another woman. I'm committed to Trek and I live in a monogame relationship with Trek. I won't be involved with a non-Trek show. No chance! Those of you who disagree with me, so be it, but you should know what it means to be a true trek fan.
This is a troll, right? If not (or even if so), this is one of the silliest statements I've heard within fandom. I was under the impression that fans watched shows because they enjoyed them, not because they'd entered into some sort of exclusive contract by which one show is entitled (!) to their full devotion. Star Trek is a product, I am a consumer, and I reserve the right to embrace or reject said product at any time.
And speaking as a "true trek fan" with 30 years of active participation in Trek fandom, I consider the new BSG to be head and shoulders above ENT at just about every level. I will always have affection for TOS, TNG, DS9, and even some eps of ENT. But no way am I going to fall into the mindset that they somehow *deserve* my support, particularly at the expense of other good shows out there.
"I like hamburgers. I'm committed to only eating hamburgers, and won't be involved with a non-hamburger food item." Sheesh.
--------
Never before have things been so much the way they are now.
-
Call me a troll if you wish, but I think you are more a "sci-fi fan" which is a general term, than you are a "Star Trek fan" which refers to people hooked on Trek, Trek, and more Trek.
I am not a sci-fi fan.
-
I am guessing he is a troll too.
Dude, liking Trek is fine but liking it if it is not good and watching it just to watch it is, hmmm...Pathetic.
Get out of the house and go on a date or something. There is more in life than Trek.
Do you know Star Trek is not real???
-
Of course Star Trek is real. Everything you see on the TV screen is real. Its THERE, mind you? On the screen. If it wasn't real, you couldn't see it. It wouldn't exsist. Star Trek exsists on the TV screen (and other places) which makes it real. People have an ankward definition of reality.
-
Quote:
I am not a sci-fi fan.
How old are you? 12? This is the silliest thing I've ever read. This is like a Yankees fan saying he's not a "baseball fan." Or a Cowboys fan saying he's not a "football fan."
So what if "sci-fi fan" is a general term and "Star Trek fan" is more specific? A well-rounded, well-adjusted person can be BOTH AT THE SAME TIME! In fact, most Trek fans are also sci-fi fans as well, because...get ready for this...Star Trek IS sci-fi!
Eve if you watch Star Trek, and only Star Trek, you are still a "sci-fi fan," whether you want to call youself one or not.
--------
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cigar in one hand, favorite beverage in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!"
-
Quote from Nuclearmothman to Hbasm:
Eve if you watch Star Trek, and only Star Trek, you are still a "sci-fi fan," whether you want to call youself one or not.
Not necessarily. Using a sports analogy: Someone may watch baseball or football, or women's gymnastics, just to marvel at physically-fit bodies, without interest in the competitive context/genre (the word "gymnasium" comes from the Greek word "gymnos", which means "naked", and original Olympics athletes performed in the nude.)
There are ENT viewers who just want to ogle their Hollywood idol. Heartthrob fantasies can become so entwined with "real" emotions that worshippers may develop a sense of having a "relationship" with "their man" and his show.
Sports fans can develop such a passionate attachment to their game that they'll even watch matches with lousy players, and perhaps boo all the while. Likewise, some STAR TREK fans might attend their once-beloved TV venue even while it has a lousy home team (ENTERPRISE).
--------------
"Sin City" Marv Talking Action Figure
-
Calm down.
Actually, it's not that silly. I won't defend the earlier statements about "cheating on the woman that is Star Trek" business because I've been supporting "Desperate Housewives" a hell of a lot more than ENT. However, I'm also not much of a sci-fi afficianado and in truth it's more silly to think that if you like one thing in a specific genre you're a fan of all of it. If you like one horror film, does that make you a horror film fan? No...
In truth, the Star Trek that I like is the kind that is most grounded to reality, which explains why DS9 is my favorite of the 5. Most of the time, it didn't rely on sci-fi concepts to drive the stories and that's when I enjoyed it the most. I appreciate Star Trek for the drama, most certainly not the high-concept technobabble plots.
-
Star Trek is not a woman, Hbasm. Being loyal to one "franchise" to the exclusion of all others will not improve your character or demonstrate your superior moral fiber. All it will do is limit and narrow your view of the world. And if you are a real Trek fan, as you claim, you'll recognize that that's contrary to the message at the core of Trek. IDIC? Sound familiar?
-
I get your point. At the same time I love Trek which means I'm ready to defend and protect it. In principle its like having a relationship with another person. Some people may feel its an inappropiate analogy, but when you love certain qualities of a person you're likely to develop a sense of loyality and bonding. Casual viewers may not understand the size of this. I have a passion and affection for Trek and nothing shall come in between.
You could say its making me narrow-minded. I've come to the point where I exclude all other "franchises" but its not against the message of Trek. IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combination) doesn't mean that I should open myself to something like BSG that proudly goes against Trek.
I appriciate Trek for what it is, and what it was cancelled for. I appriciate the values in Trek and the vision of the future. Its not a perfect show but I've chosen where I stand.
If I said something the other day that got people upset (I know I did) well, okay... I will apologise. It was stupid of me to say "get outta here once and for all". I was in a bad mood. That's no excuse but an explanation. I'm sensitive to Trek... Maybe even too much.
-
Well, you certainly don't need to become a fan of BSG, but I hope you'll give the rest of the genre a chance, whether it's TV shows, movies, or books. There's good stuff out there. It won't make up for the loss of first-run Star Trek, but it's still worthwhile.
-
Quote:
some "trekkers" go on and praise BSG and didn't have much positive to say about ENT. Then get outta here, once and for all! Its like betraying your loved one, and sleeping with another woman.
No, no, no, no. It's ok to criticize something you love, when you know it could be better. I'm talking about Trek in general.
Quote:
I won't be involved with a non-Trek show
What a limited view!!! You've missed the whole spirit of Trek!!!
-
Get a grip!
I loved TOS, TNG and DS9 the last two treks were crap. Me saying that does not betray my appreciation for the aforementioned shows nor does my appreciation for BSG. Beside BSG feels to me like DS9 with the freedom of being on cable. The parallels between the 2 shows are so many that it feels like I am getting more of what I loved back in the 90s. The politics, paranoia are similar and it adds a slightly more "adult" edge. ENT was boring until recently yet BSG had me hooked from the mini.
-
Quote:
Calling BSG a success and ENT a failure is really stretching the truth but the worst part is when some "trekkers" go on and praise BSG and didn't have much positive to say about ENT. Then get outta here, once and for all! Its like betraying your loved one, and sleeping with another woman. I'm committed to Trek and I live in a monogame relationship with Trek. I won't be involved with a non-Trek show. No chance! Those of you who disagree with me, so be it, but you should know what it means to be a true trek fan.
Well, I don't agree with your interpretation of what it means to be a Trekker. At the end of the day, if it isn't any good, then it isn't any good. I still really really like vast sections of Star Trek, though Voyager will forever leave me cold. The shame of Enterprise is that by the time it worked out what it should have done from day one it had lost the casual audience and was doomed.
Being a Trekker does NOT mean you can't be fanatical about other shows. I'm a Trekker, and a Whovian, and a whatever you call a fan of the new BSG. Being a fan is not like being in a marriage, and even if it was then it can't be all one way.
Is anyone one else getting sick of this crap? "STAR TREK lives in the sci-fi world; BATTLESTAR GALACTICA takes a step outside of it. It's very much grounded on tough issues we deal with today."
The first part is the worst crap I've read in a good long while, and the second part is the most completely untrue thing that could be said, I'm trying to get into the programme, but this bragging is realy sour. BTW Cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise still gets more viewers than the ratings supergiant Battlestar Gallactica.
--------
Hoshi: I was hoping you'd put up a fight.
T'Pol: I'm surprised you're not exhausted from all the beds, you've jumped into, recently.
"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"
-
Quote:
BTW Cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise still gets more viewers than the ratings supergiant Battlestar Gallactica.
Don't know if that's really true, at least not this year. BSG has been getting like 3 million viewers I believe, and ENT was receiving well under that just before cancellation... or am I remembering wrong?
--------
It's a rip-off. / We're stepped on, and cheated! / We're flat, stone-cold lied to / But we're not defeated / No!
Halen. "The Dream is Over."
-
Moore's Galactica averages about two million viewers per episode. Don't go by Skiffy's press releases, look at independent sources and you'll see. Moore's Galactica and Enterprise's current numbers are within spitting distance of each other. And despite the network v.s. cable defense often used to justify Moore's show's "success" and Enterprise's failure, the ratings are completely comparable since Sci-Fi and UPN have equivalent market penetration, around 80%.
-
Quote:
Sci-Fi and UPN have equivalent market penetration, around 80%.
You mean about 80% penetration for all of basic cable, not just Sci-Fi, since most of the time the two come together. And part of that is a host of other highly popular cable networks siphoning off possible viewers. Whereas UPN has to contend with at most 5 others in the broadcast markets where it's available.
At any rate, with all competitors factored in, BSG's ability to draw ratings anywhere close to ENT, and to do it on cable no less, is significant. And sheer aggregate numbers aside, there are things like demographics to consider.
Quote:
That move has attracted viewers not usually attracted to sci-fi: Though Battlestar scores particularly well with the male audience — it's the top-rated non-sports cable program in prime time among men ages 25-54 — the series' viewership is 32% female.
link
Quote:
'Battlestar Galactica' (Fridays at 10pm) averaged a 2.4 HH rating and 2.9 million viewers P2+ for the quarter, making it the highest-rated original series in the history of SCI FI.
SCI FI is #1 on Friday Nights
'SCI FI Friday' is the #2 Night of the Week on All of Cable
link
Quote:
The 10 p.m. showing of a two-parter pulled in some 3 million viewers to help "Battlestar Galactica" earn a 2.5 rating for the night. Those numbers kept it ahead of its lead-in show, "Stargate: Atlantis," which earned a 2.4 rating for 2.9 million viewers. "Stargate SG-1" had 2.5 million viewers for a 2.1 rating.
The rating gives "Galactica" an 8 percent increase over its previous week, and is now showing minimal decline from its premiere a few weeks ago. This rating is even more significant, because this is the first week that "Galactica" did not have a lot of media hype leading up to the episode, nor did it have the benefit of half-season premieres from its lead-in shows, that normally bring in higher-than-expected ratings.
The first two episodes, "33" and "Water," were shown back-to-back last month after a lot of media hype and rave reviews. Those two episodes premiered to a 2.6 rating, or 3.1 million viewers, which was the second-highest series or season premiere of all-time for Sci-Fi Channel, just short of the record set by "Atlantis" last summer. However, since the premiere, the show has lost only 4 percent of its audience through its first three weeks. That is an amazing stat for any television show. And all three Sci-Fi Channel shows -- including "Galactica" -- are doing better than "Star Trek: Enterprise" on UPN.
link
And while their season averages are pretty comparable (over the same time period, ENT's got about 2.8 versus 2.9 million BSG viewers), BSG has been much more consistent, week to week, than ENT, which has wobbled from 2.53 clear up to 3.17 million in that time. BSG's ratings have tended to be much more constistently close to their average, without so much deviation from week to week.
And the rating points for BSG are quite a bit higher than ENT. BSG's middling 2.x's are quite a bit better than ENT's almost-2's.
The fact remains that no matter what numbers you look at or how we as individuals want to interpret them, BSG is considered more popular and has extremely good ratings for anything on cable (and it's a hard fact that it's the highest rated thing on Sci-Fi period), while ENT has very poor ratings for anything on broadcast and is even well under the cancellation floor for even a ratings-starved place like UPN. I mean, when experts everywhere say BSG has good ratings and ENT has bad ratings, it's not as if they're all on the Ron Moore pay tab or they're arbitrarily making things up. Ratings on cable are viewed differently from ratings on networks, for good reasons.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Ummm no, I mean that they both have 80% penetration for all television markets, period. Sci-Fi and UPN are available in an equivalent number of homes. That wan't the case for Sci-Fi 5 years ago but it is now.
And as I said in the first reply, Skiffy's press releases do not constitute proof of anything. Of course they are going to creatively interpret the numbers to show themselves in the best possible light.
I don't, by the way, dispute that Moore's show is doing well by Sci-Fi's low standards (it's not consistantly number one though, SG:Atlantis pulls ahead sometimes) What I do dispute are the constant comparisons I see in these "reviews" about Enterprise's failure and Galactica's "success." They both do about the same.
Moore's fans have nothing to worry about, because of Sci-Fi's low standards his show will likely run for two or three more years. They should just be happy with that but there seems to be a need with some to express how much more popular, among other terms, it is than Enterprise. Neither show is particularly popular with the general audience and that is apparent with the fact that only about 2% of the potential television audience is watching either show.
-
Quote:
Ummm no, I mean that they both have 80% penetration for all television markets, period. Sci-Fi and UPN are available in an equivalent number of homes. That wan't the case for Sci-Fi 5 years ago but it is now.
True, but it also bears keeping in mind that it's not just a Sci-Fi/UPN duel. Quite a lot of other networks come into the mix any place that Sci-Fi is also available. So it's not quite like a one-on-one or even 5 on 5 showdown. And you have to subscribe to basic cable to see anything on it, including Sci-Fi's lineup. That's a heck of an entry barrier. So any result on cable must be seen through the filter that a free version of the same network or show would get much higher results simply because it would be more available.
Virtually no one subscribes to cable in order to get Sci-Fi, and until just 3 months ago no one would have subscribed to cable just to get BSG. Almost anyone that gets cable is getting it for some other reason. Only a very small number of people on the margins catch Sci-Fi at all, and very few people watch cable for Sci-Fi's content, when there are usually at least 40 other channels you can get for your subscription fee. So I think it's significant that any show on Sci-Fi can manage to stand out at all, in that light. And certainly Sci-Fi's pleased.
Quote:
I don't, by the way, dispute that Moore's show is doing well by Sci-Fi's low standards (it's not consistantly number one though, SG:Atlantis pulls ahead sometimes)
And ENT has failed even by UPN's very low standards, and BSG is a form of success by Sci-Fi's or cable in general's standards...
Quote:
And as I said in the first reply, Skiffy's press releases do not constitute proof of anything. Of
course they are going to creatively interpret the numbers to show themselves in the best possible light.
But I'd be curious to see these hard objective underground sources that show drastically lower viewer figures for BSG than what Sci Fi or (so far as I can tell) every major source is letting on. They've got to be getting their numbers from somewhere, and if they were flat out making things up, they'd have been called on it by now.
Quote:
What I do dispute are the constant comparisons I see in these "reviews" about Enterprise's failure and Galactica's "success." They both do about the same.[
Neither show is particularly popular with the general audience and that is apparent with the fact that only about 2% of the potential television audience is watching either show.
True. But the standards we might use really don't matter compared to the standards that the industry uses, and within that context BSG is certainly a success while ENT has been stillborn for some time. We might not like all the flourishes people put in their takes on the subject, but that core fact is indisputable, no matter our take on it.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
No, you're right, the average ratings for BSG are about 3 mil. people, while ENT is now getting less than that, and has been for some time.
And to top it off, ENT is on a (free) broadcast network with somewhat national range like UPN, and BSG is on (pay) cable, which is an inherently narrower possible audience. Any show that gets 3 million viewers is golden on cable, especially for Sci-Fi channel.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
Look I love Trek; I also love BSG. (the new BSG, the old BSG was a little too cartoony)
This idea that Star Trek lives in Sci-Fi and BSG is outside or half out of Sci-Fi is ridiculous. What about Sci-Fi says that it is not Sci-Fi when you deal with the human element or the current elements?
At least half of Trek is about human relationships and telling alegorical stories about today in another way. Secondly, Trek is bad sci-fi in the sense that it is poor science. Transporters, nearly limitless power, cloaking devices, even the way warp drive is portrayed is not consistent with what will be the reality. If we do travel faster than light, it will be something more similar to the FTL drives on BSG, and outside that piece, BSG seems pretty consistent with known science.
I respect what they are trying to do with BSG, and the comparisons to Trek should stop. I suppose it will continue because the journalists are not all that bright and cannot come up with more legitimate questions.
One thing I am concerned about is that some genious at Paramount will think they need to go and reinvent Trek. Get this Paramount nimrods, there is an established universe, future Trek must fall somewhere within that universe, past, current or future in relation to the existing timelines are ok, but a retelling/reinterpretation/reimagination is not. This is different than what New Voyages is doing, that is a continuation of the TOS line with new actors in the role.
That all being said, everyone should now bow to RDM because he showed us tonight exactly how a cliffhanger is written. For me I am dying for more, but so exhausted from tonights show, I don't think I could stand the continuation at this point.
--------
-
I'm assuming you're referring to the first part of the two part season finale? Good to know I've got a cool episode to look forward to when I watch it on Saturday afternoon. Just one thing:
Quote:
At least half of Trek is about human relationships and telling alegorical stories about today in another way.
Star Trek hasn't been about that in about 10 years. Star Trek isn't even seen by the media or the general public as that anymore. Now Star Trek is seen as a B-level sci-fi show that only geeks and nerds watch. They look at the bumpy-head aliens, and the poorly written plots and say, "gee, this is crap." Battlestar Galactica is not the new Star Trek, but it is the new cool sci-fi show. A position that Star Trek hasn't held since TNG ended. I'm a big DS9 fan, but I do have to admit DS9 never had the huge following TNG did. VOY and ENT never even came close. There was a time, during TNG's run, when you could say, "Yeah, I watch Star Trek," and people wouldn't snicker. Now, quite frankly, I don't even mention it. But you can say, "I watch Battlestar Galactica" and people won't call you a geek or a nerd. That's the difference. Battlestar Galactica is done well, and has gotten mainstream acceptance because it is a well-written drama FIRST, and a sci-fi show SECOND. Modern Star Trek (under Rick Berman) is a sci-fi show FIRST, and NEVER a well-written drama.
I'm happy to hear Battlestar Galactica has a 2nd season on the way, as I am to hear that the first episode of the new Dr. Who series was good, and a 2nd season of that is on the way as well. I've got my sci-fi fix for a while, and I won't really miss the poorly written under developed characters from Enterprise.
-
Yes what people mean when they differentiate BSG from sci-fi is that sci-fi is not seen as having any relevance to the human condition anymore, or having any relation to real human beings or things they can identify with or have experienced in their life. Although modern sf and Berman Trek can incorporate real human drama, and sometimes do, what people know is what they see, not the theory of what they might possibly be able to see.
Sci-fi is seen as being far more about cool gadgets, funny looking aliens, and trippy theoretical physics than about human relationships and character traits. Shows that should be about how people repsond in such a world full of those things tend instead to be about the "things" much more than the "people", unfortunately.
And if any effort at character development is attempted, it's short lived and sparse, and often forgotten or totally contradicted later on.
This is especially true of recent Trek.
Hell, I tried to sell a friend of mine on watching BSG because it was about people who just happened to be in space with futuristic technology, it wasn't about space and futuristic technology.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Unfortunately, the half of Trek that deals with the human element and current events that I referred to is TOS, DS9 and most of TNG. A little in the other two-- so your statement in that it hasn't been about the human element in 10 years-- well, I would say 6, since that was the end of DS9.
I diagree on the geek assessment. At least where I work, there are a good bit of folks, both Trekkies and non-Trekkie that are watching Ent. BSG is followed by probably a few less folks.
Of course I do think there is one big difference and TNG started this unfortunately. The technobabble level in TNG, VOY, and ENT is high. (Do you notice they rarely solved things with tech on DS9?). On BSG it is almost non-existent. Another thing, I have not seen the big reset button control on the Galactica. I think they might have installed that inside Jack Bauer.
--------
-
Quote:
I think they might have installed that inside Jack Bauer.
Hah! I've only really started watching 24 since the start of this season, so I'm curious: how have they been hitting the reset button there? I know there are all sorts of logical loopholes on the show, but I can't think of a pure reset off the top of my head...
-
There is no pure reset in the Trek sense, but some of the outs that have been used to keep Jack or someone alive have been relatively weak. I find it hard to believe that he can get stabbed, shot, or something else and within the next hour he is back at 110%.
Last season he was going through heroin withdrawals in the first few hours, but after staying up all day, taking trips down to mexico and everything else, he was just fine.
Don't get me wrong, I am hooked on the show, but there are some nits with it. The Jack Bauer power reset is one. The others are the lines "Send that to my screen" and "Refresh the hard drives". about five or six hours ago when they were at the defense contractor, the idea that with the EMP knocking out communications that the CTU could instant message Jack, when there was no client set up for that was ridiculous.
--------
-
Totally agree with your assessment. It's been a while since Trek has been able to connect with people. Hence the increasingly drop in viewership over the past decade.
You're right about DS9. It was the beginning of the splitting of fans and decline in ratings. Unlike you, I'm on the other side of the divide never caring much about DS9. And VOY was terrible. But I still watched them both.
Sadly, Trek is geek. BSG isn't. I'm also happy BSG has their second season.
-
Amen...I haven't seen a cliffhanger like that on TV since Riker's order to "FIRE!" in BOBW...
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
-
Frankly I find the new Battlestar boring--and I could never get over them breaking up the duo of Apollo and Starbuck. I might have swallowed the gender change, but they changed the whole personality as well.
The old series had a great deal of charm. Sure it was corny, but in the same way good Original Series Star Trek was, with good stories, good humor, and bad special effects.
The new version has the same trouble as Enterprise--it lacks soul. Watching good Star Trek over the years has given me the expectaion that, when I turn off the TV, I will be left with far more than time spent. Rather, I will have something in my heart to ponder and a small contemplation into what it means to be human in a large and strange universe.
If I had to finger anything as the new Star Trek, I would point to Japanese anime.
--------
"I know God won't give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much."- Bl. Mother Teresa
(1)
| 
