Even beyond Rick Berman, Paramount is the reason why TREK failed. Rick Berman is employed by Paramount, they needed to buy him out of his contract. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Berman, he is not at the top of the food chain here. Paramount couldn't or wouldn't do what was necessary to nurture the show to health. ENT was like the runt of the litter. It needed care and it was thrown in the gutter. ENT should never have been made when it was made.
Paramount is ultimately to blame. All of the other problems the show had beyond that stem from the fact that Paramount was in no position to do anything with ENT when it was being launched. Paramount should have ensured that the stories for ENT were up to par, Paramount should have canned Berman and/or Braga, Paramount should have made sure the show was promoted properly, and even offered it in alternative outlets in places where UPN isn't available.
But the debacle that was Enterprise may have a good side, it helped to define what Star Trek isn't in some of the most detailed voicing of opinions I've ever seen. When Star Trek returns, it will be both familiar and new at the same time. The break from TREK will be beneficial.
--------
To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And, at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between, plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big 'thing.' This is truth, to me.
As long as we keep blaming things like the day or time Enterprise was on or the network or what kind of spark plugs were in Bakula's car.. the problems with Star Trek wont be fixed and will indeed doom any new show or movie.
I believe the problem with Star Trek is us fans. I'm sorry to say that but we keep demanding shows based on Gene's original concepts from the 60's. American/World culture has changed a lot since then. Current TV and movies is all about Action and Conflict. With few exceptions, as soon as you get "conceptional" your audience changes channels or dozes off.
Now, a show can incorporate concepts into the action and make it work. That's why Battlestar Galactica works. For the next Trek show/movie to be successful, it will have to be more like BG in concept. Trek and us fans need to change with the times. We need to let this great Trek universe adapt to a changing audience.
Battlestar Galactica would have flourished on the Golf network. The more I read articles blaming stuff like this the more I fear Trek is not going to recover and return. Bummer.
--------
Somewhere in Texas there's a village missing an idiot
-
If thats true then why did the second Star Trek Series TNG flourish and dominate and become very successful from 1987 through 1994 and beyond, what makes good tv or movies is not souly based on the real world or what is happening in real life. TV and Movies is fiction and if its written well and done well people will flock to it. Star Trek original idea and creation from Gene is what made it have the appeal and success that it has all these years no other scifi TV show can claim what Star Trek has done as far as scifi TV history. Battlestar Galactica did not come back from its original series and have the success that Star Trek did. So I say the Star Trek original ingrediants still has weight, but only if effortr and is done well and supported, Enterprise did not recieve those from UPN, paramount, the question is why? If it had I think it would not have been cancelled.
-
Quote:
let this great Trek universe adapt to a changing audience
Its not only a change, its a degrade. Which is why Star Trek should not follow the trend. Which is also why it died. Probably.
Quote:
about Action and Conflict.
You spell these words with upper case, as if they're some kind of grand thing. They're not... Besides, didn't ENT season 3 have enough action for you? If not, you should realise by now that its YOU who have failed Trek. But Trek has not failed you.
Quote:
as soon as you get "conceptional" your audience changes channels or dozes off.
Maybe. I'm horrified by the fact that higher intelligence is a dying concept.
Quote:
we keep demanding shows based on Gene's original concepts from the 60's.
Nobody is saying Star Trek should return to gogo outfits. But behind the superficial, visible things lies a spirit. This makes or breaks Star Trek. I judge any spin-off based on the spirit, in all its facets. Of course there are some areas where I don't agree with Gene Roddenberry. But the overal concept of a better future, a better humanity, well ... is the key to my heart. The more Star Trek embraces that idea, the better. If people consider that to be oldfashioned, they're clearly lost. Beyond any hope of recovering... And if that kills Star Trek, so be it.
-
Quote:
Its not only a change, its a degrade. Which is why Star Trek should not follow the trend. Which is also why it died. Probably.
I don't think your right about shows like Battlestar Galactica being a degraded science fiction TV show. I use BG as an example of current Sci Fi because it's probably the best of the current Sci Fi on TV at the moment. BG deals with questions about Religion, What is "Human", When does a free democratic society peel away parts of itself for safety, just for starters.
Quote:
about Action and Conflict.
You spell these words with upper case, as if they're some kind of grand thing. They're not... Besides, didn't ENT season 3 have enough action for you? If not, you should realise by now that its YOU who have failed Trek. But Trek has not failed you.
Well my English teacher once told our class that Conflict is the basis for every good story ever told. And Action has become a necessity in story telling these days. There's plenty of both n ST but I believe it's the pacing of that action that leaves Enterprise wanting. Just shoe horning a phaser fight into a talking heads story doesn't work. And this is what they usually did on Enterprise. If you can tell your Concept within the conflict part of the story your way ahead as the action doesn't feel made up or shoe horned in. BG does this really well and it works.
Quote:
as soon as you get "conceptional" your audience changes channels or dozes off.
Maybe. I'm horrified by the fact that higher intelligence is a dying concept.
It's not hard to tell a great high concept story without making sound like it's talking down to the audience. In fact, that's the best way to tell the story.
Lastly, on our comments about the Star Trek Concept being about a better future, I would agree if it's told in a compelling and entertaining way. It's clear they failed with Enterprise because it was neither compelling or entertaining as the low ratings showed. BUT.. remember it's the audience that determines if the show is compelling and entertaining. That's why I originally posted that Star Trek needs to change and do stories that appeal to the current viewer.
In other words, if you don't adapt to changing times your going to die.
--------
Somewhere in Texas there's a village missing an idiot
-
I agree with some of what you're saying. But its funny how there has ALWAYS been people who didn't like the utopic overtones in Star Trek. That criticism has always been levelled against Star Trek, and you know what? I think that's exactly what makes Star Trek special! Star Trek does the unthinkable. While some people can't seem to appriciate it, other people find it extremely attracting.
When the A-bombs were thrown during the second world war, some people just couldn't grasp it. How horrible it was. Other people, I'm sure knew exactly what this meant. There has been plenty of wars since then and today, we are afraid terrorism. When I think about all this, I feel really bad.
But while terrorists are doing the unthinkable, and the bombs over Hiroshima and Nakasaki was an unheard way of mass-murdering, something our fantasy can hardly grasp, Star Trek went in the opposite direction. Showed us, the things doesn't have to be like that. TOS said its almost ridiculous that we can't keep peace. TNG tried to be living proof that humans can live peacefully. When I think about this, I feel really good. Its far from a boring vision.
I don't think the circumstances has changed one bit. Our world is dark, but should our fantasies about the future be just as dark? Why should entertainment try to make us understand (and sometimes even accept) the worst things in our world? No, we need to understand that things can be better. If we can't imagine something better, how can we improve our lifes?
I know that conflict has always been an important part of storytelling. But it doesn't have to involve death! All conflicts are not about life and death. The more interesting challanges are not so unpleasant.
-
Nice clean uplifting stories are fine for Ophra but they don't usually cut it on prime time TV or at the Movies. Even so this is not to say that everything has to be a major downer type story. Just maybe a little more realistic. I think as much as we all love what Star Trek represents and depicts as the future of Humanity, we still realize that our future is very very likely to be different. ST is more like a fairy tale. A wonderful fairy tale but none the less, still a image of what humanity would be if it were perfect.
This again is why shows like Battlestar Galactica and I'll add Fire Fly seem to resonate more with the viewing audience. They depict mankind with flaws and true nobility in a very chaotic universe. Part of the problem with ST is that no one has any flaws. From the guy who empties the trash cans at Star Fleet HQ to Capitan Archer everyone is noble. Even most of the people who do bad things are frequently still in the end really doing something noble. Like the episode where the Transporter inventor was really just trying to save his son. When viewers and true Science Fiction fans smell to much sugar coating they know there will be flys in the mix as well. I will say this... The original series was the best at showing humankind in a way that current audiences would probably like.
And lastly.... ST need to stop having every problem created on each show fixed in the last 30 seconds by realigning the Framistat or diverting all power to the Deflector Disk.
So there!!!
--------
Somewhere in Texas there's a village missing an idiot
-
Star Trek should teach us, what is right to do. And that is not bad things.
I understand why the "grey area" is interesting because it (should) help us draw reasonable limits in complex issues. That is useful knowledge.
Flawed characters are ideal for putting us into that grey area. And these characters are, in some ways, easier to care for because you feel with them.
But why are some people so consumed with heroes who do bad things for the greater good? What is the purpose of that? To make us understand and accept torture in Iraq? To shock us, and push the limits of what is acceptable? THAT is where I protest. I don't accept or tolerate violence. Why deal with really ugly things, as if they teach us how to live a better life?
UPN isn't available everywhere. We have competitive cable markets here, and UPN had an exclusivity agreement with one company. The only way to get UPN was to go with Cox, something I wasn't willing to do even for Trek.
Bakula is right. How can a show find an audience when the audience can't find the show?
Bakula has some very good points. Although a great deal of Trekkers have their preferences and something against this or that, Paramount and UPN did very little to promote Enterprise. The media is a powerful tool, to influence opinion, to advertise and generate a hype. That's how the good businessman uses it.
These guys will say anything other than the simple truth - the show was crap.
--------
1
what Scott Bakula said in that article that warrants these petty putdowns. NEWSFLASH- UPN was NOT the appropriate network to air this series. With the exception of their halfhearted acquisition of Buffy, they typically went after the younger or urban groups. That's a fact.
And if you geniuses would read between the lines, you would understand that he WAS saying the writing was bad. Look above this post and notice how he said he said Archer should have been this and that.. everything he wound up not being on the show. Good heavens people, pay attention!
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
The man is mad! Viewer apathy began after the airing of the very first episode. By the end of the first year, ratings had already dropped to a mere fraction of what it was on the night of the premiere. And this ass would have us believe that the network ran the series into the ground?
I've noticed lately the propaganda rounds being made by the Powers that Be, first claiming "viewer fatigue", and after we soundly gave them a piece of our minds for that unpardonable piece of offence, now they're touting "network mismanagement".
Funny that none of them has the guts to admit that it was POOR WRITING that ran the series aground.
-
Quote:
Viewer apathy began after the airing of the very first episode.
Out of curiosity, did you like "Broken Bow"??
The only fault I've heard about the premiere of Enterprise is that it depicted first contact with the Klingons before it was supposed to happen. I find it difficult to believe that the casual, or even the devout fan started to tune out over that detail.
I say this conversationally, not confrontationally.
--------
"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. Rule of Aquisition #109." --Quark
-
I found Broken Arrow to be a major disappointment for several reasons, chief among them:
1) Vulcans behaving like judgemental, overcontrolling villains
2) sending an immature, unready crew into deep space
3) handing over Earth's pride and joy to some self-righteous, arrogant and prideful captain with an unhealthy and irrational grudge against the entire Vulcan race
4) sending out a crew into deep space who were obviously not trained in diplomacy or lacked basic COMMON SENSE.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, it was extremely difficult to identify with this crew or feel any sympathy for their plight and it was THIS disconnect which led to viewer apathy which eventually put us in the situation we are today.
The series was so unbelievable and utterly ridiculous from day one that anyone with half an ounce of common sense was left thoroughly unimpressed. Consider this, does anyone believe NASA today would send such an arrogant ignoramus on earth's most important mission?
Good riddance is all I can say and millions of fans agree!
-
Well, there were several other things.
1) Temporal Cold War. Oh great, more time travel. Like we didn't get enough of that already with TNG, DS9 and Voyager. More of the same. Especially bad, considering time travel was not supposed to be known about, according to Spock in TOS.
2) Phase pistols and transporters. Say, isn't this supposed to be a prequel? Awfully hi tech to be taking place a century before Kirk and Co.
3) Vulcans are assholes. Yeah, wonderful. And humans stink, too. Joy.
4) The Klingon homeworld is just five days from Earth...at warp five...
5) So farmers use plasma rifles. I hate to see the size of the crows and gophers that get into his crops.
This just from the first episode. Sure, it had some nice moments. Language problems, for example. But the positives were far outweighed by the negatives.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
I guess the greatest issue in general with Broken Bow is that they were mixing Trek history with a plausible human-reality future. (ie: particle weapons and transporters are being explored now)
As for Kronos(sp?) being five days from earth, yeah that's a needless booboo, but maybe Vulcans are assholes. Bones just never came out and said it to Spock. :D
--------
"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. Rule of Aquisition #109." --Quark
Okay, seriously, what other major network would have put up with those piss poor ratings? Firefly got pulled for larger ratings, people.
And people complain that the show wasn't promoted enough. If you people didn't notice, Enterprise kept the same day and time for three years! You know how rare that is for a struggling series? Quantum Leap got tossed around mercilessly to the point where hardcore fans had no idea what night/time it was on.
Bakula is full of shit. If he wants to look for the reason Enterprise failed, look no farther than the Killer Bees and Bakula himself. I thought Archer was pathetic, the worst of all captains. A whiny little bitch. I liked Janeway better than him. You have no idea how sad that is...
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Pardon my language, but waht the FUCK is your problem?? Bakula is absolutely entitled to his opinion - you may disagree with him but so beit. UPN DID NOT promote enterprise, a lot of casual fans had no idea it was on. And have you not noticed the programming UPN carried, very dissimilar to Ent.
I suggest you get off your high horse and allow somone to express themselves without blowing up. (Bet you're gonna tell me to do the samething ;) )
--------
“People who are willing to give up their liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
-
Quote:
Pardon my language, but waht the FUCK is your problem??
My problem was Enterprise. Problem solved. :D
Quote:
Bakula is absolutely entitled to his opinion - you may disagree with him but so beit.
And I did disagree with him and you jumped on me for it.
Quote:
UPN DID NOT promote enterprise, a lot of casual fans had no idea it was on.
12 million people were aware it was on when it first aired, now didn't they?
Quote:
And have you not noticed the programming UPN carried, very dissimilar to Ent.
Science fiction is rare on television. ABC has Lost and Alias, to my knowledge nothing else on that network comes close. NBC has nothing, Fox has nothing, CBS has nothing.
So just bringing up the dissimilar programming really isn't a valid argument.
Quote:
I suggest you get off your high horse and allow somone to express themselves without blowing up. (Bet you're gonna tell me to do the samething ;) )
Nope. But I do suggest if you are going to argue that you get your facts straight first.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Your problem is obviously not Enterprise if you need to bash a singular person's character to make yourself feel better.
As far as my facts not being straight...really don't know what you're talking about. Enterprise may have had 12 million viewers to begin with, but after that first episode there was little to no promotion - and that is a FACT. Just because it was promoted before it aired doesn't mean you can just stop promoting it after that...
--------
“People who are willing to give up their liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
-
My theory: (and I stress "theory")
Many of the people who bitch about Enterprise have only watched select shows, and not very many at that. And the few who may have tuned in religiously only to find fault with everything (as mind-staggering a waste of time that sounds like) only watched the episode once and with complete loathing and no willingness to let things develop.
The refusal to see anything good in Enterprise has more to do with growing distain for Berman and Braga than the actual quality of the show (IMO of course - which leaves me open to the tired responses that I'm easily entertained, blah blah blah)
There's more continuity to Enterprise and Voyager than what people give them credit for. Especially if you watch them as self-contained entities - both shows were very faithful to their own beginnings and character development if you take the time and attention to watch them without chewing everything to pieces. Again in my opinion, they ADD quality and heart to the Star Trek Universe.
And bitching about shuttle-counts, and the temporal cold-war going nowhere, are just nit-pickers to me. They've missed the point entirely. Additionally, I say there was no patience given to the playing-out of the TCW. It had the potential to be threaded intricately throughout 7 seasons of Enterprise with a brilliant reveal whether or not the writers knew where it would end up when they began. (Seasons 1 and 2 were setting it up, Season 3 was ratings damage control that dropped the TCW to the back-burner - and due to a lack of patience the writers were unduly forced to end the whole thing at the beginning of S4, without getting to explore it further) I also think that Manny Coto if given the chance could've given an indepth, viable and entertaining explanation for T'Pol's (e'r bemoaned) un-Vulcan behaviour. And yes: I think they were making her "un"Vulcan with a purpose.
People wanted a new Star Trek series to be different, and Enterprise was. It just turns out that the fans weren't willing to be open-minded. It's a damned-good show that ended way before it's time.
Now lets hear how flawed my opinion is according to the malcontents.
***as a side-note, I'd like to comment on how strange it is to feel "hated" for loving Voyager and Enterprise on a Star Trek board. I realize that the two-shows aren't considered "real" Trek by many here. But nonetheless - a differing opinion in favour of either is greeted with vindictive enthusiasm. I'm still here for the abuse strangely enough, since the opinions don't matter to me. (and usually I don't have the time or energy for defense) But I am curious as to how this board came to be so vicious? Has it always been this way? Or did it just get this way when Trek started to "suck" (supposedly). I've been watching since TNG and DS9 and although there have been a few "clunker" episodes throughout all 4 modern Trek shows... I just didn't see the decline that everyone has declared. And I'm far from being a stupid person or, "easily entertained".
--------
"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. Rule of Aquisition #109." --Quark
-
Quote:
Many of the people who bitch about Enterprise have only watched select shows, and not very many at that.
No. I've seen every one.
Quote:
And the few who may have tuned in religiously only to find fault with everything
I don't. I like Phlox. I like Trip...seemingly the only two characters any effort went into. Also a compliment to the actors themselves. Billingsly maintained the dignity of the character no matter what swill they gave him to play off of. It's the only redemption to be found in eps like "A Night in Sickbay" for example.
Quote:
There's more continuity to Enterprise and Voyager than what people give them credit for. Especially if you watch them as self-contained entities
As Katefan pointed out a prequel, by its very nature as a prequel CANNOT be self-contained.
Quote:
both shows were very faithful to their own beginnings and character development
Character development? Chakotay? They dabbled with him in the first few eps, but he went nowhere in 7 years Neelix? He was the same insufferably chirpy court jester he always was. Hoshi "hailing frequencies open" Sato Mayweather? No growth for them either.
Quote:
And bitching about shuttle-counts, and the temporal cold-war going nowhere, are just nit-pickers to me.
Nitpicking when Bermanaga touted those elements as things that would set the new show apart. Voyager in the middle of nowhere limited resources...struggling to survive. Struggling to mesh two disperate crews.
Meshing disparate crews...no problem...took 6 weeks.
Resources...no problem there, either. The ship is perfect and we can replace shuttles week after week. Hell, we can even have the holodeck at will...All we have to do is throw in some nonsense line about how the Holodeck power systems are incompatible with the rest of the ship (What??? LOL)
Just so we don't have to do the thing that makes sense...like turn it off and use it to power something that matters...like the food replicators. But hey, they had to come up with something so they could give us wretchedness like "Spirit Folk"
You see...all of these elements when forgotten just make for "same old, same old" It became what so many here have called it.... TNG lite. They may as well have had a full Starfleet crew. They may as well have had Starbase support given the fact that these things...that were supposed to make it new and different...were such non-issues.
Because to write within those boundaries would take effort the brother's B were unwilling to expend. I question if they even had the talent for it.
The TCW was an exponentially MORE difficult...impossible the way they did it. They tried to write it as they went along. You simply cannot do that and expect it to make sense. Every element...every event has to be plotted and episode in the pipeline might have to be signifficantly rewritten to accommodate that
They thought it'd be a cool idea...started throwing these TCW crap together in haphazard fashion (which is obvious when watching it) then realized they were into it so deeply alreay and that it was such a convoluted mass of nonsense that they ran away from it as fast as they could.
--------
"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:
Many of the people who bitch about Enterprise have only watched select shows, and not very many at that. And the few who may have tuned in religiously only to find fault with everything (as mind-staggering a waste of time that sounds like) only watched the episode once and with complete loathing and no willingness to let things develop.
I tried watching the show straight through seasons one and two. I gave it a chance. I came back and tried watching it through season three but had as much difficulty doing so as I did during season two. The show was not very good. Season four was marginally better.
Quote:
The refusal to see anything good in Enterprise has more to do with growing distain for Berman and Braga than the actual quality of the show (IMO of course - which leaves me open to the tired responses that I'm easily entertained, blah blah blah)
Yes, I have major issues with the Killer Bs. I also think that Enterprise just wasn't that good a show. The characterization wasn't very good, there was a retread of old plot devices, etc. etc. I've made my views plain often enough around here.
Quote:
There's more continuity to Enterprise and Voyager than what people give them credit for. Especially if you watch them as self-contained entities - both shows were very faithful to their own beginnings and character development if you take the time and attention to watch them without chewing everything to pieces. Again in my opinion, they ADD quality and heart to the Star Trek Universe.
I disagree. The prequel pissed on the legacy of Trek. You talk about it's self contained continuity. If you are doing a prequel then you need to be faithful to the shows you are a prequel to.
Quote:
And bitching about shuttle-counts, and the temporal cold-war going nowhere, are just nit-pickers to me.
So, if the Temporal Cold War makes no sense, or is going nowhere, or is just being poorly executed I should just shut up and not say anything.
The TCW sucked. B and B blew it by stating right off the bat it was a temporal cold war, then proceeded to let it meander aimlessly, ultimately ending with...Space Nazis. And if I don't like it, I'm just a nitpicker.
And we weren't shuttle counting Enterprise, we shuttle counted Voyager. A series about a ship stranded in the ass end of space without support should be a bit more exciting; we're running out of shuttles, food, spare parts, photon torpedoes. Voyager had no identity of it's own because even the Maquis got along far too well with the Feds.
Quote:
They've missed the point entirely. Additionally,
I say there was no patience given to the playing-out of the TCW. It had the potential to be threaded intricately throughout 7 seasons of Enterprise with a brilliant reveal whether or not the writers knew where it would end up when they began.
In order for that to happen you had to have brilliant writers to write it. B and B are anything but. The critical acclaim season 4 got was due to guest writers and Manny Coto. Many of us-most of us, I dare say-had no faith B & B could pull off anything remotely like a seven season storyling.
Quote:
(Seasons 1 and 2 were setting it up, Season 3 was ratings damage control that dropped the TCW to the back-burner - and due to a lack of patience the writers were unduly forced to end the whole thing at the beginning of S4, without getting to explore it further)
If the first two seasons had been written well then fans would have had the patience to stick it out. But it was not and the fans lost patience.
Quote:
I also think that Manny Coto if given the chance could've given an indepth, viable and entertaining explanation for T'Pol's (e'r bemoaned) un-Vulcan behaviour. And yes: I think they were making her "un"Vulcan with a purpose.
No, they weren't. They sexed her up for cheap ratings, turned her into a crack whore because they were morons then spent season four doing damage control.
Quote:
People wanted a new Star Trek series to be different, and Enterprise was. It just turns out that the fans weren't willing to be open-minded. It's a damned-good show that ended way before it's time.
I wanted different. I also wanted good. Enterprise was not different because it was still more B & B nonsense (time travel, cheap titilation, even a holodeck mishap or two).
Quote:
Now lets hear how flawed my opinion is according to the malcontents.
You're opinion is not flawed, it's your opinion. I and a majority of malcontents simply don't agree with it.
And considering the fact that the show is off the air, the malcontents seemed to be the ones who were right. For proof watch These Are The Voyages again. Written by Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. These were the architects of your "great" series. This was how they chose to end it. You actually think these two jackasses could have produced seven seasons of quality programming if they did not even know how to end the program?
Quote:
as a side-note, I'd like to comment on how strange it is to feel "hated" for loving Voyager and Enterprise on a Star Trek board.
I don't hate you. Pity you, maybe. :)
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Pity is not required... I lead a fortunate and blessed life.
And I'd like to point out that I've NEVER defended TATV. I was incredibly disappointed with it on almost every level. I don't think it was the same calibre for any Trek show. But my speculation about that particular episode that it was a huge "Fuck You" from B&B to their critics, masked in nostalgia. I don't think it was a "valentine" on any level. My first reaction to TATV was quite simply that B&B threw the finale as cannon fodder. (and that the anti-fans would be watching for something to criticize and they got a big ball of crap to play with justifiably.) I'm convinced they could have done something far better, but had no reason to. If I were in their place I might be inclined to say screw it too. They're only human and the upward shift in critical opinion of Enterprise in it's final season didn't seem to matter anyhow.
To further the point of feeling "hated" as a Voyager or Enterprise fan. I can acknowledge the valid points made by people who hate both Ent.and Voyager. The shows have had their short-comings. But all of the Trek shows have had flaws. Major ones at that. When posters have anything positive to say, there is a blood-lust to shoot them down, discredit them, bash the post, bash the poster, bash the storyline, bash the writers, etc with the speed and enthusiasm of a horde of piranha happening upon fresh meat. And that's not me whining. That's just an observation as to what an adversarial place this board is.
To me, a lack of continuity isn't nearly as disgusting as the holier-than-thou, mental-superiority complex many people exhibit here in an effort just to be negative.
Trek is still enjoyable. It has never stopped being enjoyable. That's not reflected in the ratings by any stretch of the imagination. But maybe being a flop is it's greatest compliment. The masses don't always have the right idea about what's high quality and what's not. There are countless "hits" on TV and radio to back that up. The casual viewer doesn't care that Archer and company met Klingons and Ferengi and Borg, and I still firmly believe that they're the numbers that fell away. If it wasn't compelling enough for them, maybe it's because they feel excluded by the ongoing storylines that need to be followed in order to derive any pleasurable viewing. Maybe this, maybe that... whatever.
But I do think it's wrong to try and make people feel bad for liking something that you don't.
Now to make an already too-long post, stupifyingly too long... I will address you in quotes as you do me.
Quote:
I tried watching the show straight through seasons one and two. I gave it a chance. I came back and tried watching it through season three but had as much difficulty doing so as I did during season two. The show was not very good. Season four was marginally better.
Do you not find that all Star Trek episodes are better over time? I'm not trying to be lame, but when I watch older episodes of TOS and TNG there's a bit to forgive, but I find I enjoy them for their own merits with each repeat viewing. Perhaps that's just me.
Quote:
The prequel pissed on the legacy of Trek. You talk about it's self contained continuity. If you are doing a prequel then you need to be faithful to the shows you are a prequel to.
Alright, calling it a prequel was perhaps the biggest mistake they ever made. And if anything's apparent, it's that revisionist history among traditionalists is the unforgivable crime, punishible by death (if some Berman haters had their scary way.) Is that the only acknowledgement required perhaps? That they set out to write the beginning and make it more a reflection of what they thought it could've been? Throw in some known species for familiarities sake etc, mess with preconceptions of what certain Trek races were already established to be. I realize there are many more concerns than just this, but just for a moment, let's take a grain of salt and say it's not fair to judge an entire race based upon your experience with one or even a few people. It's not an accurate representation and I think we can all agree on that. So let's just take that blanket and throw it over T'Pol for example. Non-typical Vulcan behaviour, granted, but I for one wanted to know why she wasn't like other Vulcans. I was waiting for it, and think eventually it would have come, but so much for that.
I've been watching the 1st and now 2nd season again on DVD and marvelling at why people have had such a tremendous problem with Enterprise. It's been even better for me on DVD. There are 28 seasons of Trek... that's an awful lot of continuity to stay on top of, and I think for the most part they've done a really great job in the face of those kind of expectations. For a show in a franchise that up until recently was pretty-much guaranteed 7 seasons to play-out, I think it's a grand acheivement to remain faithful to it's own beginning. Nevermind 3 other spin-offs and a cult hit from 35 years ago. I don't fault anyone for having high expectations, and it's no excuse to let things slide into the toilet, but I think a lot of the criticism is waaaaay too harsh.
Quote:
So, if the Temporal Cold War makes no sense, or is going nowhere, or is just being poorly executed I should just shut up and not say anything.
No, not at all. But I don't think you or the others that cry foul about it gave it enough time. Again I cite that they thought they had 7 years. That's a lot of time to build on. I for one thought they had a pretty compelling thing happenin' there until the Space-Nazi resolution. Which I'm not shitting-on, because I think it had merit too. But my impression is that it was capped-up way too soon and way to fast to be completely satifying. Had they not stated off-the-bat that it was a TCW, though, I'd be willing to bet that people would be complaining that they didn't know what was going on. And we can't have that now can we? But who knows, maybe more people would have stuck that one out had it not been spelled-out as a TCW. I know I would have.
Quote:
And we weren't shuttle counting Enterprise, we shuttle counted Voyager. A series about a ship stranded in the ass end of space without support should be a bit more exciting; we're running out of shuttles, food, spare parts, photon torpedoes. Voyager had no identity of it's own because even the Maquis got along far too well with the Feds.
The shuttle-counting remark was directed at Voyager critics. ;) I will submit that maybe they played it safer than they could have. But in order to keep it Trek, it still has to be about peaceful exploration. (Says who? I don't know.)Not about a desparate crew willing to do anything to survive. That's what kept it hopeful. Episodes like Equinox explored those kind of scenarios though as an alternate. I'm a huge Voyager fan as well, but I don't want to dwell on that for now. Let me just say that I think they had their fair share of peril. And I'm not certain how interesting it would have been for them to be in a constant desparate battle for their existence, because ultimately they'd always have to win for the show to continue, and that's not realism. Their battles and constant triumphs over the Borg are proof enough that the fans here didn't like Voyager always coming out on top. The Maquis situation: I've got an opinion on that too, but I'll save it.
Quote:
In order for that to happen you had to have brilliant writers to write it. B and B are anything but. The critical acclaim season 4 got was due to guest writers and Manny Coto. Many of us-most of us, I dare say-had no faith B & B could pull off anything remotely like a seven season storyling.
This is a bit out-of-sequence, but to go back to the TCW. This is a difference in opinion. I think the TCW could only benefit from the input of the guest writers and Manny Coto, based upon the compelling stories we got in S4. I think B and B are pretty talented. I've enjoyed their work for years obviously and I don't have anything other than my own opinion to back up the fact that I did have faith in them. So you win, on that one. But please don't disrespect me by telling me I misplaced my faith.
Quote:
They sexed her up for cheap ratings, turned her into a crack whore because they were morons then spent season four doing damage control.
Again, this is your opinion versus mine. Yes, they sexed-her up. I found a minor level of camp in it, and I wanted to know what was up with her in general. It may have failed, but again not all characters work. Many of her lines could've been delivered in typical stoic Vulcan form, maybe the directors fucked her character over more than we know. Jolene's an attractive woman. I don't see the problem with her being sexy if she's comfortable with it. A cat-suit - meh - I hope in the future we're mature enough to not get so hung up on what someone's wearing because it shows off their body. Please don't mistake that for me saying you're immature about sex, that's not what I mean and I know you never even mentioned a cat-suit. That's just come up a lot in other peoples posts.
Quote:
I wanted different. I also wanted good. Enterprise was not different because it was still more B & B nonsense (time travel, cheap titilation, even a holodeck mishap or two).
I'd venture that it was different enough to piss off a great number of devoted fans and not different enough to lure in a whole new audience. Things that were thrown-in for familiarity, perhaps even as a wink to acknowledge the fans, were taken as an insult. Time travel is at the very heart of sci-fi in many ways. It's not exclusive to Trek and B&B never claimed ownership. You didn't like it: fair enough. And I only recall one holodeck episode, (TATV) and I'll go as far to agree with you that it was indeed shit, but I've already given my 2 cents on that.
Blah... sorry for the extra long post. (I've got extra time on my hands but this is where it ends today.)
Have a great weekend everyone, and that includes you too Katefan, even though I think you're harsh, overly-critical and rude. ;)
(you threw in a dig at the end of your response, I'm just following suit.)
--------
"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. Rule of Aquisition #109." --Quark
-
Quote:
Do you not find that all Star Trek episodes are better over time? I'm not trying to be lame, but when I watch older episodes of TOS and TNG there's a bit to forgive, but I find I enjoy them for their own merits with each repeat viewing. Perhaps that's just me.
Not really. I will not sit through TNG episodes like I do TOS eps. I have a stronger attachment to TOS reruns than I do any other series.
And Voyager sure as hell hasn't gotten better with age.
As for the second part, let's assume that all Vulcans are really assholes. What about the mind melds? Telepathy? Pon Farr? There were many things that they screwed up on in regards to Vulcans that people simply did not appreciate, and it took Judith and Garfield Reeves Stevens to repair the damage in season four.
Quote:
No, not at all. But I don't think you or the others that cry foul about it gave it enough time. Again I cite that they thought they had 7 years...
Watch X-Files. They managed to keep the mystery going for five years up through the motion picture and stayed fresh. If you know how to write a mysterious storyline and know how to write it well, giving people clues here and there along the way, then you put asses in seats. This is beyond Berman and Braga's abilities, who specialized in single-shot "bottle" episodes and tried to make a season long story arc sound like something new and original.
Quote:
This is a bit out-of-sequence, but to go back to the TCW. This is a difference in opinion. I think the TCW could only benefit from the input of the guest writers and Manny Coto, based upon the compelling stories we got in S4. I think B and B are pretty talented. I've enjoyed their work for years obviously and I don't have anything other than my own opinion to back up the fact that I did have faith in them. So you win, on that one. But please don't disrespect me by telling me I misplaced my faith.
The problem with Manny Coto is he's had his fumbles as well. I found Bound to be shit. T'Pol turned into a crack whore? Yeah, like that worked.
Coto did some good work but I did not see enough to make me believe in him utterly and without question. Take the X-File's Chris Carter, for example. By season six of The X-Files he was out of gas. His spin offs were failures. The well had run dry.
Now take Babylon 5's JMS. He has proven he knows more than just the B5 universe. His comics are outstanding (Amazing Spider Man, Supreme Power, Midnight Nation, Rising Stars), he is still a potent creative force.
as for T'Pol, I don't have a problem with sex if it is done in a mature manner than applies to the storyline. I just did not see how this Vulcan would prance about in her catsuit (yeah, let's bring it up) and high heels with that stupid haircut. She looked terrible. It was 7 of 9 all over again and more evidence that B & B really had run out of ideas.
Quote:
I'd venture that it was different enough to piss off a great number of devoted fans and not different enough to lure in a whole new audience.
I suppose that is possible.
Quote:
Things that were thrown-in for familiarity, perhaps even as a wink to acknowledge the fans, were taken as an insult.
Well, like I said, the phase pistols and transporters weren't necessary. I read what you said about real world applications, but there is no guarantee we'll ever see effective transportation in our lifetimes. Saying humans did not have either technology by this point would have been better overall and lent more of a prequel feel. If you are saying it is a prequel, go for it all the way.
Quote:
Time travel is at the very heart of sci-fi in many ways. It's not exclusive to Trek and B&B never claimed ownership.
The point is they made it the cornerstone of the series when it had been used too much. Yeah, it's a staple of sci fi, but JMS was smart enough to only make three time travel eps. in B5, and all three were connected to one another. JMS recognized the value of the maxim that less is more.
Quote:
You didn't like it: fair enough. And I only recall one holodeck episode, (TATV) and I'll go as far to agree with you that it was indeed shit, but I've already given my 2 cents on that...
There were three. First season had Unexpected, where Trip got pregenant. The aliens had a holodeck. Then there was Oasis, with holographic people. Both were in season one.
Time travel and holodecks. B & B's two favorite crutches.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Quote:
I just didn't see the decline that everyone has declared. And I'm far from being a stupid person or, "easily entertained".
Feel free to like what you want, that's your business. But when comparing VOY and ENT to anything that came before it, if you can't at least see what the differences in quality are... where someone else MIGHT think it unpalatable by comparison I suggest that at the very least you are, in fact, easily entertained.
--------
"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
-
Bakula has a right to his opinions and should not be dismembered for it.
Besides... working on the show, he has a much better vantage point for these things then we fans have or will ever have.
Flynn 19
--------
'Rose, you were fantastic. And you know what? So was I.'
-The Doctor, Doctor Who (2005)
-
Yeah, he has a right to his opinion and I have a right to mine. The fact is he goes on about how they were on the wrong network and the fact is there was no right network for this shit, and had they been on another network they would have had the plug pulled on them years ago.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
I'm just saying. I hate when people go off at him for saying what he thinks.
They should just accept that he has a right to think as he pleases and leave it at that.
Then again... I'm one of those people who finds pointless and trivial arguments and discussions such as this, a waste of time.
Flynn 19
--------
'Rose, you were fantastic. And you know what? So was I.'
-The Doctor, Doctor Who (2005)
-
And yet you still participate in them.
The fact is most arguments on the 'net are pointless and trivial to most people except for the people having them.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Quote:
And yet you still participate in them.
You know... they're like car wrecks. You drive slowly by them when they are being cleaned up out of morbid curiosity.
Flynn 19
--------
'Rose, you were fantastic. And you know what? So was I.'
-The Doctor, Doctor Who (2005)
... but it had the wrong production staff, too. There are numerous reasons and excuses for ENT's ultimate failure, but the absolute CHIEF among them is that the writing plain blew. The audience simply didn't like what they were watching. UPN didn't support the show, yeah, we know that. But despite that lack of support, 12 million people watched the first episode. The support stayed the same, the audience numbers dwindled.
--------
"Serenity" is the movie "Star Wars" prequels wish they could be.
-
12 million people did watch the first episode... when UPN promoted the hell out of the show. But that support did vanish very quickly. Here in the LA area, there were billboards promoting Smallville, Angel, even BSG... I don't recall seeing one Enterprise poster since its premiere.
The problems with why Enterprise failed are multi-faceted. There's no one clear-cut answer. But lack of promotion was definitely one of them. It seems to me that UPN (which should not be confused with Paramount, which is a separate entity within the Viacom family) *wanted* the show to fail. They were scuttling the ship at every turn. The move to Fridays was designed to sink the ship.
I can't wait for the day when there is something else Trek related to read than another opinion of why Enterpise failed.
-
Had Enterprise been on CBS, NBC, FOX, or ABC, it wouldn't have survived ONE season. Might not have even made it to February sweeps.
More popular and higher rated shows than Enterprise were canceled by those networks.
In fact, Enterprise never would have existed because VOYAGER would likely have been canceled no later than Season 2.
-
I agree that Voyager and Enterprise would have most certainly been cancelled on a bigger network and a helluva lot sooner than what they were granted on UPN. But UPN/Viacom and Paramount did NOT respect or promote the franchise anymore.
They had long-since given-in to the Trek-Nerd stigma. The masses in general have wanted Trek to go away for a long time. It's embarrassing to them, and I'm sure that UPN didn't want to be known as the Star Trek network. "King of nerd-hill". How could they grow with that kind of association? Sad but true.
The only way I see a network broadcast of Trek working is if they respected the modest-stability of the numbers and made it a respected "portion" of their programming with external promotion. (ie: magazines, TV Guide, pre-movie theatre spots, etc - other outlets - which with contra and trade agreements, is not that hard or expensive to implement - I work in radio, so I know a little about this.)
Since networks aren't about stable, non-growth programming, that's not likely to happen.
I doubt that Trek will ever return to it's glory-day popularity it enjoyed during TNG. Not because it doesn't deserve to, it just didn't get past it's nerd-appeal fast-enough to put critics at bay and keep the fans proud and vocal without being labelled and distained by the general public.
--------
"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. Rule of Aquisition #109." --Quark
The network wasn't the issue. It contributed, but ultimately Enterprise would have failed regardless of which network it was on. It was the fault of poor plotting, weak dialogue, and (occasionally) suspect acting.
I find it odd that Bakula, Berman and Braga feel the need to constantly justify themselves. And I have to disagree with Bakula about his character's arc. Though it wasn't entirely his fault, there were many, many instances where Archer was written and acted out of character. He was a captain cut of the Janeway logic-and-reason-be-damned mold, not of the Kirk or Picard molds.
A Night in Sickbay best frames Archer ... more concerned with his dog than the ship or its crew.
The poorly-written Archer is a part of the reason Enterprise failed, at least as responsible as was UPN and its lack of support.
-
I agree that Bakula had little to work with as the writing was poor. This fault has to go to the B&B, UPN and Paramount. As I look back to Season 4, which some consider the best of ENT, it still had poorly written dialog. I am starting to wonder, after watching Episode III, that maybe George Lucas had his hand in writing ENT. I do not think that this show would have done much better anywhere else unless the franchise had invested in some new blood like Coto....maybe someone that actually liked Star Trek (TOS) and not tried to remake it in his own image.
I have to say the best actor on ENT was the dog, Porthos. He was a great Beagle and he is the character I will miss the most.
--------
"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
-- John Wayne
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
--Dr. Leonard McCoy
"I'm a politician, which means I am a cheat and a liar, and when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their lollipops."
-- Jeffrey Pelt, The Hunt for Red October
"Liberals, Intellectuals, Peacemongers, IDIOTS!!!!"
- General Decker, Mars Attacks
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
- Q from Q Who
-
As long as we keep blaming things like the day or time Enterprise was on or the network or what kind of spark plugs were in Bakula's car.. the problems with Star Trek wont be fixed and will indeed doom any new show or movie.
I believe the problem with Star Trek is us fans. I'm sorry to say that but we keep demanding shows based on Gene's original concepts from the 60's. American/World culture has changed a lot since then. Current TV and movies is all about Action and Conflict. With few exceptions, as soon as you get "conceptional" your audience changes channels or dozes off.
Now, a show can incorporate concepts into the action and make it work. That's why Battlestar Galactica works. For the next Trek show/movie to be successful, it will have to be more like BG in concept. Trek and us fans need to change with the times. We need to let this great Trek universe adapt to a changing audience.
Battlestar Galactica would have flourished on the Golf network. The more I read articles blaming stuff like this the more I fear Trek is not going to recover and return. Bummer.
--------
Somewhere in Texas there's a village missing an idiot
-
Archer worked fine for me. Frankly, almost all the characters on ENT were better than VOY's crew. The reason the show failed was S1 & S2. The stories were terribly mundane and boring. If ENT had stared with S3 & S4 (and perhaps if the design had been more retro) it would have been a better show, but ultimately it would have failed because the entire Trek audience was still queasy over Voyager and ENT was a victim of that backlash.
-
Archer worked fine for me. Frankly, almost all the characters on ENT were better than VOY's crew. The reason the show failed was S1 & S2. The stories were terribly mundane and boring. If ENT had stared with S3 & S4 (and perhaps if the design had been more retro) it would have been a better show, but ultimately it would have failed because the entire Trek audience was still queasy over Voyager and ENT was a victim of that backlash.
(1)
| 
