I'm thinking were looking to Star Trek: Phase II, part 2, the second five year mission. no comment on TNG stars debunking the show. Nobody complained when they released the STAR TREK: Hellraisere Shinzon poster with "stealth" size trek logo for Nemesis. They did Enterprise TATV, too. Was that the lsdt one? And, yes, I did comment.
If you have to explain the joke ('lost' audience), it probably wasn't a very good joke.
--------
Scientists discover the world that exists;
engineers create the world that never was.
-Theodore von Kármán
I appreciate Ms. Sirtis' feelings, and I appreciate all she's given to Star Trek. And I agree with her that for a very long time Paramount didn't understand Star Trek or its audience. However, at this point in the game, going back IS going forward. The audience they are trying to (re)capture isn't just Joe Moviegoer, but in many cases, the Star Trek fan himself. All the rich layers of characters and canon that have come since 1987 are wonderful, but Star Trek has become so cluttered that the average audience doesn't know what Star Trek is anymore. In an identity crisis, you retreat to the essential-the iconic. That means Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock with the pointed ears. Everyone gets that- even Paramount.
And as I think I've written before, nothing about Star Trek XI will ever invalidate the unequaled work that TNG did for Star Trek and for genre television in their heyday. And who knows, there may yet be a place for them in some future incarnation. If they break Star Trek away from strict linear cannon, lots of possibilities arise.
I'm new to TrekWeb. Hi, everyone!! :D
Ideas like the one Ms. Sirtis' has presented in this article represent the exact mentality that has almost killed "Star Trek".
What's her ideal view of Trek? More "Next Generation" films? At least there is some life in the characters of the prequel, as allegedly proposed by JJ Abrams and crew.
As much as Ms. Sirtis would like to deny it, there is a large section of the movie-ticket-buying audience that would like to see the backstory of Kirk & Spock.
As much as she'd like to see herself starring on this type of project, the public probably won't care an iota about the backstory of, say, Troy, Riker or Worf.
Before even attempting to take Ms. Sirtis words seriously, I'd like to see her acting, writing, producing or directing credentials. Oh, SNAP! She has none of the above...
'Nuff said, and off my soapbox.
Ummmm how's that godawful purple costume going?
Sorry couldn't think of anything else to add to this I think eveyone has said bitter enough already without me saying it again... oh hang on
--------
Quit your day job
During the chat, Sirtis didn't stop with the new Trek film, she also took the time out to take a swipe at the last Trek TV show "Enterprise was NOT Trek. Just had so called Vulcans thrown in for seasoning to call it Trek".
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
I love how these actors, Sirtis and Burton in particular, are so eager to shit on "Enterprise" as they cash their checks for participating in it.
What a bunch of hypocrites!!! Is it any surprise that I also felt they were the two weakest characters on TNG?
Oh yeah, like her comments can even be taken seriously. I have to wonder if SHE understands Star Trek at all. Oh wait, I have the answer, she doesn't. I think she's just angry because there won't be any more TNG movies and Hollywood isn't beating down her door to offer her any starring roles.
Ironically, her role on TNG was the most vague of all of them and she's lucky that they didn't write her out of the cast in the first season, so I think she should just sit tight and start practicing her lines for Star Trek XI because rumor has it that there's a salt monster in the story.
--------
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.
There's a tidied version of the transcript that's easier to read, with comments from Sirtis in blue text.
Sirtis does seem bitter toward the franchise. Out of the blue, she says, "I wish I had invented Star Trek. If I'd have invented Star Trek, I'd still be on it!"
This comment is outrageous: "I think Rod may be able to buy it back once Paramount has killed it, and he'll get it cheap."
CBS Paramount is doing the right thing in taking Star Trek away from Rick Berman loyalists and snubbing Junior Roddenberry.
I hope J.J. Abrams et al can effectively drive these parasitic elements away from the franchise.
--------------
SECRET STASH SAFES - Hide Your Booty In A Clever Can
So a Grade C minus actress now comments on the future of Trek. And sadly she is correct. Although she conveniently fails to mention that the movie franchise is like a beached whale because her TNG compatriots could not draw the attention of the general moviegoing public.
Their disastrous performance at the box office is one of the main reasons the franchise is dead. And speaking of disastrous performances- her atrocious C minus acting in the films did not help.
Wake up- smell the coffee, Marina. Yeah, TOS and prequel is a bad idea. And lots of people are looking at TNG the same way right now- as a terrible step backwards.
--------
psp1
Star Trek has always been about heading to the future, not the past. Enterprise showed this and was not successful, and for Star Trek XI to be a prequeal shows Trek is out of ideas. Star Trek has evolved beyond Kirk and Spock and to go back to them after 6 TOS films and 4 TNG films shows that Trek is dying, or can't come up with nothing original without relying on past character espeically on TOS
-
Quote:
Star Trek has always been about heading to the future, not the past. Enterprise showed this and was not successful.
That's the thing. Forget whether one believes ENT was a good or a bad show, and forget the endless whining about TATV. ENT was never going to be successful with the Trek audience because the Trek audience does not want to see prequels. Never mind whether Abrams "gets Trek" or not. The fact is I am convinced that the mass audience, and the Trekkie audience, aren't interested in a retread of TOS. OK, it'll be an interesting NOVELTY to see Matt Damon (or whomever) as Kirk but that'll wear out fast.
At the same time, I think TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT have run their course so there's no need to bring them back on the big screen, either. Pocket Books has demonstrated that there is an audience for "Star Trek" concepts that don't always go back to the TOS/TNG well (speaking SCE and New Frontiers specifically). What's to stop Abrams from creating a Trek series taking place in the 25th Century or the 30th Century or the 300th Century.
Al
-
Double post.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
I disagree. The prequel concept is not a total loss, not if it is done well. I was willing to give Enterprise a chance, but the execution was piss poor on so many levels. The technology was too advanced, there was not enough focus on TOS aliens, the Temporal Cold War, etc. Most of the characters were not interesting, the Vulcans were fucked up, etc.
And all of that would have been possibly forgiveable if the writing had been better, but I was not the least bit impressed by what B & B delivered. If you look at the first two seasons B & B wrote at least half of the episodes, so the blame falls squarely upon their shoulders for the fact that the show had to switch gears to that Xindi nonsense in season three.
So if JJ can deliver a good product I think 'Trek fans would be willing to give it a shot. JJ has a good reputation as a creative force and his material combines a nice collection of drama, action and comedy, focusing on interesting characters. Lost is very much a character driven show, and Alias worked because the cast was given such great stuff to work with. I don't know about Felicity, though; never watched it.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
I am disappointed that Marina Sirtis has chosen a path of negativity. It matters not, however. Her role in the TNG episode, ‘Face of the Enemy’ absolves her of any criticism. : )
'nuff said.
-
Are you saying that she'll end up getting a role in the movie despite her criticizing?
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that goes for Marina too. I can't say I really understand the current fixation on TOS either. Star Trek is so much more than TOS. Everyone knows it. Yet everyone is talking about TOS right now. But alright. Its not a big deal to me. I can accept it for now. In 10 years, it will be the next generation of Trekkers who relish in TNG nostalgia. And in 40 years, people will talk about the glory of ENT. Who knows.
-
TNG, DS9, Voyager, and especially Enterprise did not have the social impact The Original Series did. TOS inspired people to become scientists, it helped to break down racial barriers, it made sci-fi television a profitable proposition (if not in the initial run then at least in syndication where it made tons of money).
TOS had three excellent movies, two decent films and one bad one. TNG had one good one, one mediocre one and two that were complete shit.
Enterprise did not inspire, it did not elevate people to a higher thinking. It does not make people say "Yeah, I want to be a scientist and enter the space program!" There were no new technological ideas explored that we had not already seen in earlier 'Trek.
As for TNG nostalgia, it's pretty hard when the last two films were complete disasters. Sort of leaves a bad taste in your mouth. At least ST VI was a wonderful send off. And what was Enterprise's send off? These Are The Voyages. Oops.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Yeah well, all just the natural development of Star Trek. You can't keep impressing people with things they've seen before. You'd have to erase their memory (or get a new audience).
I don't see how things could have turned any different, well, it could have been a lot worse but certainly not any better. Star Trek was born (new and fresh) and has grown up. Its still the same creature. If people can't appriciate the now-old-face of Star Trek, then I see no hope for its future. Its not going to age well.
You better lower your expectations! Be satisfied with this old face of Star Trek. It doesn't have to be ugly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
People just have no sense of loyality, no honor, so they get a divorce and flock to see BSG and what not. New and exciting.
I just hope ENT finds a bigger audience, a new generation of Trekkers, as time goes on. We will see. I realise ENT is not alone in the market like TOS was. Chances are, young people will stick to computer games and never appriciate Star Trek on TV.
-
Quote:
Yeah well, all just the natural development of Star Trek. You can't keep impressing people with things they've seen before. You'd have to erase their memory (or get a new audience).
Or maintain a high level of quality in terms of storytelling and production. We received neither with Enterprise. You say that the show was not written for the right audience. The "right audience" were both science fiction fans and Star Trek fans, not thirteen year old boys eager to see T'Pol in a decon rubdown scene.
Quote:
I don't see how things could have turned any different...
Had B & B not been so in love with themselves perhaps they could have looked for some quality writing talent. They wrote more than half of seasons one and two and it shows.
Quote:
...well, it could have been a lot worse...
After TATV I can't see how.
Quote:
but certainly not any better. Star Trek was born (new and fresh) and has grown up. Its still the same creature. If people can't appriciate the now-old-face of Star Trek, then I see no hope for its future. Its not going to age well.
It is not "the same creature". Enterprise was considerably different from TNG, TNG different from TOS. DS9 was different from any of them. Voyager tried to be TNG lite and Enterprise adopted the worst aspects of Voyager.
Quote:
You better lower your expectations!
No, I keep my standards high. That's why I don't settle for crap like Enterprise.
Quote:
Be satisfied with this old face of Star Trek. It doesn't have to be ugly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Whatever.
Quote:
People just have no sense of loyality, no honor, so they get a divorce and flock to see BSG and what not. New and exciting.
They flocked to BSG because of the quality of storytelling and interesting characters. I'll take Adama over Archer any day. As much as I dislike Starbuck she is certainly more interesting that T'Pol. The writers spent a lot of effort in fleshing out the entire cast, unlike Enterprise where the likes of Reed, Mayweather and Hoshi were just there taking up space.
Quote:
I just hope ENT finds a bigger audience...
Hope, as they say, springs eternal.
Quote:
...a new generation of Trekkers, as time goes on. We will see. I realise ENT is not alone in the market like TOS was. Chances are, young people will stick to computer games and never appriciate Star Trek on TV.
With the continued success of shows like The 4400, Stargate and BSG there is evidence there is still a market for sci fi. However you can't simply stick "Star Trek" on the box any more and expect it to sell merely on those merits. You have to put an honest effort in the product.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Quote:
You have to put an honest effort in the product.
They've done that all along. Star Trek is just getting old, and oversaturation leads to people like you complaining over lack of quality.
Quote:
Enterprise was considerably different from TNG, TNG different from TOS. DS9 was different from any of them. Voyager tried to be TNG lite and Enterprise adopted the worst aspects of Voyager.
Sure the shows are different yet they belong to the same family. How could they not? They're produced by the same people, by and large. Except for DS9, which was also the most "different" Trek.
Quote:
The BSG writers spent a lot of effort in fleshing out the entire cast, unlike Enterprise
Unlike TNG, VOY, ENT and maybe even TOS, BSG is suppoedly a characer show. It is also produced by RDM who wrote for DS9.
ENT was not a character show. BSG is.
ENT was not about negativity. BSG is.
The perfect blend would be a character show about positivity, but apparently we can't have both. I stick to ENT. You stick to BSG.
-
Quote:
They've done that all along. Star Trek is just getting old, and oversaturation leads to people like you complaining over lack of quality.
Your over saturation argument does not touch the fact that the show's quality has suffered. TNG had a strong cast of characters; Worf, Data, Picard, Riker, Geordi, Dr. Crusher. We had a solid cast of secondary characters in Ensign Ro, Guinan, O'Brien, Keiko. Enterprise could not hope to match the cast because B & B could not be bothered to or they lacked the talent to do so.
Over saturation? What other 'Trek series was airing during this time? No other. There was no 'Trek overlap like TNG/DS9 or DS9/Voyager. B & B could devote all their (so called creative) energies on this show and they came up very, very short.
Quote:
Sure the shows are different yet they belong to the same family. How could they not? They're produced by the same people, by and large. Except for DS9, which was also the most "different" Trek.
It goes way beyond production, there are also the writers to take into account. Look at how popular Enterprise's season four was among many 'Trek fans. Why? Because B & B hardly wrote any of the episodes, unlike seasons two and three where their stink was all over.
Quote:
Unlike TNG, VOY, ENT and maybe even TOS, BSG is suppoedly a characer show. It is also produced by RDM who wrote for DS9.
And there you go. DS9 had strong characters. But TNG had a very strong cast as well (as I mentioned above). There is no excuse why Enterprise could not have had an equally strong primary cast and supporting cast. It is a small ship, we should have been seeing repeated appearances of minor characters.
Quote:
ENT was not a character show. BSG is. ENT was not about negativity. BSG is.
You cannot equate a character driven show with negativey. Like I said, TNG had a very well fleshed out cast and it was a positive show. So your theory does not hold water.
Quote:
The perfect blend would be a character show about positivity, but apparently we can't have both. I stick to ENT. You stick to BSG.
TNG, dude. TNG. Positive show, well fleshed out cast.
Again, you have no excuse. There was no over-saturation. Twelve million people gave B & B a shot and they failed. They had supreme confidence in their writing talents and fumbled the ball. They thought they did not need a well rounded out cast of characters and discovered it was not the case.
Watch TNG. By giving characters a good background you create opportunities for interesting stories. Worf's Klingon heritage, Data's humanity, Picard's stoicism, these were all fuel for great storytelling. The rest of the character provided great counterpoint (the poker games, Picard and Crusher's shared breakfasts, Geordi and Data's friendship, etc.) all provided wonderful moments. Even Wesley stopped being annoying when he wasn't saving the ship every week.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
TNG had a strong cast of characters[eq]
ENT had fairly strong main characters too: Archer, Trip, T'Pol, Phlox and secondary characters: Soval, Shran.
You can't tell me it wasn't enough. Millenium got away with just one main character. X-Files got away with 2.
[b]Over saturation? What other 'Trek series was airing during this time?
The shows were still running in peoples minds = oversaturation. This is so simple I don't understand why you dismiss it
Look at how popular Enterprise's season four was among many 'Trek fans. Why? Because B & B hardly wrote any of the episodes[eq]
That could be just an internet phenomena. The ratings didn't go up. Instead they went down.
[b]TNG had a very strong cast as well .. There is no excuse why Enterprise could not have had an equally strong primary cast and supporting cast
In my opinion, the cast of ENT was as good as the cast of TNG.
[b]You cannot equate a character driven show with negativey. Like I said, TNG had a very well fleshed out cast and it was a positive show. So your theory does not hold water.[eq]
I didn't say it was impossible. TNG had a RELATIVELY well fleshed out cast and it was a positive show. I say "we can't have both" because no current producer seems to understand. Gene Roddenberry was the only exception, ever. And Paramount tried to crush his vision early on. Like they're always doing because they want to feed the masses, not rare individuals.
B&B tried to follow in Roddenberry footsteps and did fairly well. But Roddenberry was the only person who REALLY "got" the ideals of Star Trek from the bottom of his heart. It was his own ideals.
Now I await Abrams to turn Star Trek 180 degrees, just like any other producer out there would love to do.. RDM, JMS.. all of them.
-
Quote:
ENT had fairly strong main characters too: Archer, Trip, T'Pol, Phlox and secondary characters: Soval, Shran.
T'Pol does not count. All her character development involved her being brain raped, made to look weak, then getting married off. Sexist trash, courtesy of B & B.
Archer was a terrible lead character, a strutting child.
I concede Trip and Shran were well fleshed out, although isn't it sad taht Shran had more dimension than Archer? Phlox? Eh, he seemed more a collection of gimmicks rather than a properly fleshed out character. I disagree with Soval; he was portrayed as a typical Vulcan asshole in almost every appearance, then they decided to change him to forward the Vulcan story line. Perhaps that was what they called character development. I call it damage control.
Quote:
You can't tell me it wasn't enough. Millenium got away with just one main character. X-Files got away with 2.
Millenium wasn't very good, never mind how good Lance Hendrickson is. And yeah, X-Files was good for a while (five seasons and a movie, in my opinion), but they did not have two actors surrounded by five actors who pretty much did nothing. Enterprise did.
Quote:
The shows were still running in peoples minds = oversaturation. This is so simple I don't understand why you dismiss it
I dismiss it because it is simply false. These are re-runs. People are initially more inclined to watch something new rather than a re-run.
So by your way of thinking, millions of 'Trek fans would rather watch re-runs of these 'Trek shows rather than Enterprise. Why is this? The only explanation is that the current product is so sub-par that it cannot defeat the urge in fans to watch re-runs.
That is pathetic. I know I would be more inclined to watch a new show rather than a re-run I've seen time and again.
This is not over saturation, this is an inability for B & B to deliver a product that could grab the attention of 'Trek fans away from re-runs.
Quote:
That could be just an internet phenomena. The ratings didn't go up. Instead they went down.
I can concede that.
Quote:
In my opinion, the cast of ENT was as good as the cast of TNG.
...Wow. So T'Pol's crack-whoring stands up to Worf's pursuit of his Klingon heritage, or Data's desire for his humanity? Archer is as good as Picard or Riker?
Man, you are so in the minority there. First of all, like I said, there was a far more
[b]You cannot equate a character driven show with negativey. Like I said, TNG had a very well fleshed out cast and it was a positive show. So your theory does not hold water.[eq]
Quote:
I didn't say it was impossible...
You said:
Quote:
The perfect blend would be a character show about positivity, but apparently we can't have both. I stick to ENT. You stick to BSG.
TNG was that. Well fleshed out characters combined with a fantastic series of stories.
Quote:
TNG had a RELATIVELY well fleshed out cast...
Try "very well fleshed out", especially in comparison to Enterprise.
Quote:
...and it was a positive show. I say "we can't have both" because no current producer seems to understand. Gene Roddenberry was the only exception, ever. And Paramount tried to crush his vision early on. Like they're always doing because they want to feed the masses, not rare individuals.
First of all, TNG's cast was very well fleshed out, far more than Enterprise's. Of that apparently we are going to have to disagree. No surprise.
Second, bear in mind that Berman was a powerful force in the latter development of TNG. So there is no reason why Rick Berman and former writer-now producer-Brannon Braga could not look at that winning formula and at least try and replicate it. But they did not. Instead they fumbled the ball. They wrote thirty eight episodes of this show instead of concentrating on producing a good product. They were still thinking like writers, not producers.
Gene Roddenberry wrote eps. of TOS of course, but he had Gene L. Coon concentrating on the background machinery of the show. And Gene had a host of writers from the outset giving him a wealth of talent. B & B were arrogant in thinking they could do it all, and it was well beyond their meager talents.
Quote:
B&B tried to follow in Roddenberry footsteps and did fairly well.
Not really. You think Roddenberry would have delivered a "fuck you" to the fans like These Are The Voyagers? A valentine, huh? Sure, one dipped in shit.
Quote:
But Roddenberry was the only person who REALLY "got" the ideals of Star Trek from the bottom of his heart. It was his own ideals.
I disagree. Producers like Gene L. Coon also got his vision on TOS and greatly aided in it's execution. Numerous writers of the various 'Trek series wrote stunning stories, they got it. B & B degenerated into writing stories of crack whores and mind rapes, continuously going back to borrowing storylines from earlier 'Trek series (too bad they keep showing re-rusn, reminding people just how uncreative the two are).
Quote:
Now I await Abrams to turn Star Trek 180 degrees, just like any other producer out there would love to do.. RDM, JMS.. all of them.
Where does JMS come into it? B5 was a unique series. Are you talking about his work on Spider Man? I don't mind what he did; you have forty years of Spider Man stories in numerous series, eclipsing the number of overall 'Trek stories. JMS' mystical take on Spidey was interesting.
And I did not mind Gwen Stacy sleeping with Norman Osborne. People seem to forget people hated Gwen back then. Boring, they said. They killed her off so MJ had a clear shot.
Overall, JMS' comic work is stellar; Rising Stars, Midnight Nation, Supreme Power/Squadron Supreme. And, of course, B5.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
ENT didn't live up to fans expectations, granted. That's because after 600 episodes or so, fans looked at ENT and said "hey, this doesn't live up to my favourite episodes of Star Trek". I say that's not fair to expect that ENT will be like your favourite episodes.
This is oversaturation, when people begin to bash a good show because its not "perfect". If people had been so spoiled back in the old days, shows like TNG and TOS would have been cancelled immediately.
Imagine a child listening to music for the first time. Its new and intriguing. Soon, the child develops a certain taste for music. But its very different when you grow up. For example, I've heard maybe a thousand compositions, and it takes more to impress me. Actually I think people today are so spoiled that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We have no place in our hearts for the artists, except in rare cases when their art manages to impress us. Music is just a product to skim, and in most cases get rid of. I hate that. It isn't fair. And its another effect of oversaturation: There is too much music available. Just as there is too much TV available. People expect too much now, and they're completely cold towards a product that isn't EXACTLY what they want... This is why the audience for Star Trek is fractured, more than ever... And I see little hope that its going to change anytime soon. Its all a matter of oversaturation. There is too much entertainment on the market.
Quote:
These Are The Voyagers
I thought it was a brilliant episode, nothing less than stellar. I don't care if I'm a minority.
-
Quote:
ENT didn't live up to fans expectations, granted. That's because after 600 episodes or so, fans looked at ENT and said "hey, this doesn't live up to my favourite episodes of Star Trek". I say that's not fair to expect that ENT will be like your favourite episodes.
And that is a flawed way of thinking. When TNG was on not everyone said "Hey, this does not live up to my favorite episodes of TOS." When DS9 came on people did not say "This doesn't live up to my favorite episodes of TNG." People were tuning to see if the show was good or bad. Enterprise was bad for the reasons I mentioned:
1) Inability to create a prequel that honored TOS. Like the second Star Wars trilogy, you have to be faithful to the source material while at the same time introducing new elements. It is a difficult balancing act, which is why prequels tend to suck.
2) Inability to create a good ensemble cast. One of TOS' flaws (blasphemy, I know) was it's concentration on three characters, with minimal exposure for the rest of the cast. But that was the nature of television back then.
With TNG onwards you had a large cast of characters that gave writers more options. If your name appears in the opening credits, you deserve some producer/writer love and attention. Most of the cast did not receive it.
Quote:
This is oversaturation, when people begin to bash a good show because its not "perfect". If people had been so spoiled back in the old days, shows like TNG and TOS would have been cancelled immediately.
I do not expect "perfect", I expect at the very least "competent". B & B did not deliver; asshole Vulcans, over-use of TNG aliens, too technologically advanced ship, etc. And I would have forgiven much of this if the writing had been up to standard. But B & B, who wrote much of the first season, in their arrogance decided to create this insular vision.
How can you direct an ep. when the producer wrote the script? You aren't, not really. The producer is looking over your shoulder, making sure "their" script is handled right. It did not work for George Lucas, who himself created an insular mindset, and it did not work for B & B.
Now, let's address the term "over-saturation". Like I said before, Enterprise was not competing with any other 'Trek at the time, although you claim that re-runs count. Like I said; people are more inclined to watch the new rather than that which they have already seen. So all B & B have to do is write decent stories with a complete cast of interesting characters. They have a loyal fanbase who want new 'Trek. The number has been repeated ad nauseum; twelve million people tuned in, wanting new 'Trek. No, correction; they wanted new, good 'Trek.
And B & B fumbled the ball, big time. You keep blaming fans for "abandoning" 'Trek, but it was B & B who are to blame for arrogantly thinking half-assing it would be good enough.
'Trek fans, in general (you excluded, considering you actually think TATV was good) have a high standard, they always have. It is why TOS has such an enduring fanbase, why TNG and DS9 have their hardcore fans. Half ass it, and 'Trek fans see it. And instead of keeping coming back they protest the only way they can, in the pocket book. They stop wasting money at the box office, they stop watching the mediocre television show. It is the only power they have.
Quote:
Imagine a child listening to music for the first time...
I love these lame analogies you attempt to throw out. By "love" I mean "I recognize them as pathetic attempts to make your defense of lame 'Trek sound more reasonable than it is".
Quote:
...Its new and intriguing. Soon, the child develops a certain taste for music. But its very different when you grow up. For example, I've heard maybe a thousand compositions...
"Compositions?" Are you making some pathetic attempt to sound highbrow? Why not use the word "songs"? Lame.
Quote:
and it takes more to impress me.
As it should. As a child your tastes are simple. You grow up, your taste in music changes. Barney doesn't cut it any more.
Quote:
Actually I think people today are so spoiled that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We have no place in our hearts for the artists, except in rare cases when their art manages to impress us.
Blame the artist as much as us. If the artist continues to make an ass of themselves in public as attention-seeking whores then they have no one to blame for their negative image than themselves. If Brittney Spears marries a redneck who has to borrow money from her to buy her a ring, don't blame us for laughing derisively.
Quote:
Music is just a product to skim, and in most cases get rid of.
If the music is of low quality and forgettable, then it gets the attention it deserves. If B & B produce shit then Enterprise gets the audience it deserves; shrinking.
Quote:
I hate that. It isn't fair. And its another effect of oversaturation: There is too much music available.
Oh please. More choice is good for the consumer. You want to go back to the three station format on television and make people limit their choice to your beloved Enterprise rather than getting a choice to watch The 4400, The Dead Zone, Stargate(s) and the rest of it. Sorry, it won't happen. You adapt. You step up your game. And if you produce a good product on television and if you have the support of the network, you succeed.
B & B had every single chance to succeed. The network gave them three seasons in the same timeslot to deliver and they failed. Miserably.
Quote:
Just as there is too much TV available. People expect too much now, and they're completely cold towards a product that isn't EXACTLY what they want...
Stargate is not "exactly" what I want. I want Richard Dean Anderson back. It does not stop me from enjoying it, because the writing, acting and production are good. If a product is you, fans are forgiving of flaws. People kept watching TNG despite Wesley.
Quote:
This is why the audience for Star Trek is fractured, more than ever...
If by "fractured" you mean people who liked Enterprise and those who did not, then yes, we are fractured. Too bad for you you are on the tiny piece that actually liked that crap.
Quote:
And I see little hope that its going to change anytime soon. Its all a matter of oversaturation. There is too much entertainment on the market.
Oversaturation. Oversaturation. Oversaturation. Saying your favorite word over and over again does not make it true.
Anyway, your analogy is flawed. Imagine B & B are musicians. When they started they were awesome. They had numerous platinum albums, delivered hit after hit.
But after a while they grew jaded and instead of retiring, instead of looking to help promote new talent, instead of collaborating with other artists, they keep churning out albums that have nothing but shit on them.
This is The Rolling Stones. These guys haven't had a decent song in years yet they keep churning them out, and die-hard fans keep buying them. And your concert attending fans do not go to see the 'Stones to hear their new stuff, they go to hear their classics. Just like people don't buy new B & B, they would rather watch the old 'Trek that was good.
Don't blame the consumer for wanting better quality television. Blame the guys churning out the same shit and blaming fans when we don't buy it.
B & B deliver the same old crap, figuring that it is good enough. It is not. The proper, responsible thing to do would have been to bring in new talent, foster new producers and writers. Instead we saw a pair of arrogant pricks who thought they were still the golden boys of 'Trek, even though the cracks had begun to show years earlier on Voyager.
More is better for the consumer. More choices means you, the music listener, have a greater choice. That means the record companies need to be focusing on the quality of the musical acts, not the quantity. Music downloading has become a major issue because people are fed up with paying $16-$20 bucks for a CD with two or three good songs on it. Like watching an entire season of Enterprise and getting only two or three good episodes when in years past most of the season was a hit.
B & B, fat and complacent, looked at the television market as it was twenty years ago when TNG ruled. Not as it is today, with greater competition from cable. Are all sci-fi shows good? No. Are they all to the taste of 'Trek fans? Not necessarily. But rather than whining about "'Trek traitors" and "over saturation" from so-called "competing" re-runs of 'Trek, B & B needed to step up their game through the measures I mentioned. They did not and their careers suffered.
Quote:
We have no place in our hearts for the artists, except in rare cases when their art manages to impress us. Music is just a product to skim, and in most cases get rid of.
Bull. Shit. You are conversing with one of the world's biggest Kate Bush fans. I love Kate Bush, was loyal to her even during the twelve years she was not producing music. I respect her and love her and see her as a person, not a product.
And despite all that I can acknowledge when I don't like some of her stuff. Her latest double album, Aerial? Not a big fan of it. But it is not due to her half-assing it like the 'Stones do; I recognize the work she put into it. Unlike B & B her music evolves; Hounds of Love is not The Sensual World, which is not The Red Shoes, which is not Aerial. Each album is different. Unlike B & B and the 'Stones where they churn out the same old crap.
Quote:
I thought it (TATV) was a brilliant episode, nothing less than stellar. I don't care if I'm a minority.
Yeah, okay. You are also in the minority in regards to your lame "over saturation" theory, too.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
I can only hope the general audience isn't as tough as you.
Quote:
"Compositions?" Are you making some pathetic attempt to sound highbrow? Why not use the word "songs"? Lame.
There you go again. Attacking me for not understanding every detail of a foreign language.
Quote:
If a product is you, fans are forgiving of flaws. People kept watching TNG despite Wesley.
I like the sentence "if a product is you". ENT was a product for me, especially in the first two seasons. I had hoped you would understand that I'm simply into this kind of softcore television, rather than claiming I have low standards. I'm very fastidious, but ENT was my style! ENT wasn't tough, shocking, extreme, wild, dark, offending. That's my reason for watching Star Trek, in the first place.
Quote:
More is better for the consumer. More choices means you, the music listener,
I'm both a listener and a musician at heart. Maybe that's why I can see things from both perspectives; the producer/artist and the consumer.
-
Quote:
I can only hope the general audience isn't as tough as you.
Considering how Enterprise went away, I guess the general audience is. If by "tough" you mean we have higher standards than you, then I suppose we do.
Quote:
There you go again. Attacking me for not understanding every detail of a foreign language.
I do when you choose to use a four syllable word in place of a one syllable one.
Quote:
I like the sentence "if a product is you". ENT was a product for me, especially in the first two seasons. I had hoped you would understand that I'm simply into this kind of softcore television, rather than claiming I have low standards. I'm very fastidious, but ENT was my style! ENT wasn't tough, shocking, extreme, wild, dark, offending. That's my reason for watching Star Trek, in the first place.
Neither was TNG all the things you just claimed, but it was done far better than Enterprise in every. single. way.
Huh, and it is interesting now that you have gone from liking Enterprise in general, you now condense it two just the first two seasons.
Quote:
I'm both a listener and a musician at heart. Maybe that's why I can see things from both perspectives; the producer/artist and the consumer.
Uh, yeah. So, you are saying the likes of Pillar and Behr should not have opportunities to produce their shows for cable just so B & B don't get shown up? That they should stop showing re-runs of TNG, DS9 and TOS just so people aren't constantly reminded of a time when 'Trek was better?
Behr and Pillar have just as much right to produce as B & B. 'Trek fans have the right to watch classic 'Trek if current 'Trek fails to entertain, and rather than calling them "traitors" for wanting to watch BSG you should be asking yourself if maybe you are the traitor to the spirit of 'Trek for your inability to follow the tenets of IDIC.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. That means the more television out there, the more potential for good television.
Oh, and Braga tried doing something different, but Threshold failed. What does that tell you about his lack of talent? Insulated by working with 'Trek for so many years, he forgot what it was like working in the real world.
JJ Abrams has worked in different genres and is a success. Joss Whedon has worked in different genres, he is producing Wonder Woman. What are B & B doing now? Jack shit.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
No, Marina is exactly right. Abrams has not convinced me that he knows enough about Trek to safely tell a story of Kirk and Spock's origins (which is a REALLY stupid idea, in my opinion, if this movie is to bring in new fans).
Worst of ALL, is that Abram's shows have had a tendency (or even pattern) of glorifying and justifying torture. This is NOT acceptable in Trek and would be a serious departure from Gene's vision of our "enlightened future".
I want some assurances from the producers that this will NOT happen and that Abrams will honor the vision of Trek before I will see this. And if lifelong fans like myself won't go, then this project is doomed, in my opinion.
PhAZe
-
With this, you have my full support, PhaZe !
I didn't know this dark side of Abrams. I have never seen his work.
But I can't say I'm too surprised. Popular film makers have to love the dark. Cause it sells.
-
First, how can you judge a guy's work if you have never seen any of it? I criticize comic book writer Mark Millar, but at least I have read plenty of his work to judge. I criticize Enterprise because I sat through much of it...much to my sorrow.
Second, you don't like dark? How about your beloved Enterprise?
In season two's The Expanse, seven million humans die.
In season three Archer threatens to throw a guy out the airlock in Anamoly.
Rajin: numerous humans are slaughtered as the Xindi invade the ship.
Impulse: every Vulcan dies.
North Star: the episode opens with somebody getting hanged.
Strategem: Degra is exposed to psychological torture to get information out of him.
Azati Prime: Numerous humans die due to T'Pol's drug addiction.
Damage: Archer rips off a piece of alien technology to make his ship go, leaving a bunch of innocent aliens stranded.
Countdown: Hoshi is tortured by aliens so that she can make their Death Star work.
Zero Hour: Archer literally blows up his opponent.
Don't talk to me about dark, man. Most of that season was dark for one reason or another, with characters doing all sorts of questionable things.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Hey katefan,
You are right in citing some excamples of how Enterprise violated the faith of many Trekkers and showed its captain and sometimes crew committing violations. I had hoped the idea was to show that these actions do NOT produce the results that benefit humanity in the long run. No one is saying we don't enjoy the dark side of a story, but that's DIFFERENT from glorifying and EXCUSING torture. When the "good guys" commit torture (as they often did in Alias, and do in Lost) and it is justified, THEN the story is bad. I am not a survivor, but have worked with and am freinds with many survivors of torture. Approval of this practice is NOT what we need in our society now and worst of all in Trek! I am not saying Abrams WILL do this, but his practice so far worries me and Trek fans should let him know we don't appreciate it.
-
You have some valid points, but JJ is not a one-trick pony, resorting to torture as a plot device in every episode. As far as I know he never used torture on Felicity.
'Trek is a different genre from Alias, as Alias was a different genre from Felicity. The man has shown he can operate in different types of fiction, so I do not believe Kirk and Spock are going to run around as secret agents of Section 31, torturing Klingons for information.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
I hope you are right, but I am more concerned with his lack of consciousness around the issue. In the current political climate torture is even more of a concern and responsible art does not encourage that. In fact, Star Trek, to be true to its ideals, should be going out of its way to say that it is wrong. At its best Star Trek makes social commentary and carries a message. If Abrams justifies torture on his show while US troops and other agentss are actively engaged in torture then he clearly doesn't "get it" in my eyes. That makes him a bad candidate for Trek.
wow...bitter much?
nice swipe at ENT, didnt stop you from taking their cash though
she also failed to mention how the last film she was in was the first Trek film to not make a profit.
JJ Abrams seems to know Trek pretty well...I bet you a billion dollars that she would be singing a dif tune if she got a call from the execs she says are 'killing Trek'
unless she is so deluded to think that anything without her in it is 'killing Trek',
I loved TNG, but the concept of a psychologist on board just felt like lame 80s touchy feely BS to me
--------
visit TrekMovie.com for the latest news, downloads and info on Star Trek XI and Star Trek TOS in HD
Despite the blatantly hypocritical statements, and allowing for the fact that she sure knew Roddenberry a lot better than me, which was not at all.....
Gene's comments about 'going forward' that I've read (and I wish I could find and/or post my half-remembered evidence) always seemed to me about moving forward creatively. Exploring new ideas in science and social fiction, and taking advantage of new techniques in visualization.
I didn't realize that he literally suggested having to move into the future of the universe he created. That to me seems very, weird, actually.
I don't know. That's my kind of pointless opinion, anyway.
-
Gene's comments about 'going forward' that I've read (and I wish I could find and/or post my half-remembered evidence) always seemed to me about moving forward creatively. Exploring new ideas in science and social fiction, and taking advantage of new techniques in visualization.
Aren't they the same thing? I mean in the era Abrams is going to, the universe is already established. We know the technology, because we saw it in the original series. Also it's not "new ideas in social fiction" either, because no matter what the content, we know what the end result is going to be: Kirk, Bones, and Spock on the Enterprise. It's actually a very stale method of telling a story.
The only thing in your list that it has going for it is taking advantage of new techniques in visualization, but that certainly isnt unique to Abrams' movie. ANY Star Trek movie, whether its made by him or Bozo the clown will undoubtedly use computers, cameras, etc that were unavailable back in Roddenberry's era.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
I know of Marina's special relationship with Gene and Majel-- but didn't Gene, Jr also have a special relationship with his parents? Why doesn't he know of his dad's desire only to move forward with Trek projects.
And if he does know that- why is he a consulting producer for New Voyages? Surely the Roddenberry's don't need cash-- and even if they did, you don't make any money off of New Voyages-- it is only for the glorification of Trek.
I feel like Norman trying to resolve the paradox. Gene said not to do stories of the past, yet Gene Jr, carrying his torch, is a producer of New Voyages. Does not compute!
--------
Well, sounds like Marina's not too big a fan of Lost. If it were anyone but J.J. Abrams in charge of this new movie, I doubt I'd disagree with Marina. As a rule, I oppose prequels. I agree that ST should move forward. I hope the next TV show does go post-Nemesis by 4 or 5 years (our real time) and shake up the existing TNG universe. (I have strong ideas about how I'D do it, but I'm not tellin'!)
I think J.J. Abrams understands Trek better than anyone since Star Trek 6.
--------
Click here to check out my band, ego tree , and the Ego Tree site at myspace. Listen to/buy the CD for $9.99! ALSO AVAILABLE ON iTUNES!!
...but....but did you forget your role in the last...WORST Trek episode ever made??? On ENT no less???
If it's such swill (and, for the most part it was) why humiliate yourself?? Doesn't that kinda, sorta make you an "artistic whore??"
--------
"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
-
Yeah, I agree. She talks about moving forward but she adopts her role from ten years or more past on a show that is itself a prequel. Guess she would change her tune if JJ offered her a part in Trek XI, eh?
I am not fully sold on a prequel idea either, but I respect JJ as a producer. I loved Alias' first four seasons (season five, with pregnant Sydney doing spy shit was just too much for me) and while I am not a fan of Lost it is obvious he has a winning formula.
So I am willing to see what JJ brings to the table.
--------
"Oh, I'll wake up
To any sound of engines,
Ev'ry gull a seeking craft..."
Kate Bush, And Dream of Sheep
-
Quote:
Guess she would change her tune if JJ offered her a part in Trek XI, eh?
You know it. :) She'd be singing its (and his) praises every ten minutes.
Quote:
So I am willing to see what JJ brings to the table.
Whether or not his ideas will come out well remains to be seen, but, even if he fails, I suspect it'll probably have more to do with failed execution rather than just slapping together 2 hrs worth of film because I feel like it. AKA...the Berman method.
I think he understands Trek. I think he likes it, too. Which puts him 2 more ahead of Berman, too.
--------
"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
waaaa waaaa waaaaa
--------
Tony, who split from his wife Georgina after he replaced their fridge with a "warp coil"
"OH MY" - George Takei
-
I think Marina is also right. Some people consider her a hypocrite for working on ENT, but maybe her views changed since she did the show? Or maybe it was nothing more than a paycheck to her? We've all done jobs that we didn't care for, or in retrospect didn't like, so I don't think her statements are inexcusable.
This attempt by JJ/Paramount to recreate the magic of TOS is going to be much harder to do than many rebooters believe.
The Trek universe is so rich and still filled with potential I really would like to see a new crew post-Nemesis if the TNG couldn't get another movie.
-
I'd still do her.
-
This is such a potential no-win for Abrams. A recast TOS pre-quel satisfies no one. The TOS die-hards still want Shatner. The Next Gen cast has aged past its prime. I think only DS9 loyalists (me, included) would come to a Ds9-cast movie. And a Voyager movie wouldn't fly.
But if you start a new cast Post TNG/DS9/VOY- you're still in uncharted waters.
I hope for a post-TOS (re-cast)/pre-ST:TMP story (That of course, DOESN'T violate ST:II-X & TNG canon.
--------
In the battle between "good" and "evil," "evil" usually wins, unless "good" is very, very careful."
Dr. Leonard McCoy.
-
No, Marina is exactly right. Abrams has not convinced me that he knows enough about Trek to safely tell a story of Kirk and Spock's origins (which is a REALLY stupid idea, in my opinion, if this movie is to bring in new fans).
Worst of ALL, is that Abram's shows have had a tendency (or even pattern) of glorifying and justifying torture. This is NOT acceptable in Trek and would be a serious departure from Gene's vision of our "enlightened future".
I want some assurances from the producers that this will NOT happen and that Abrams will honor the vision of Trek before I will see this. And if lifelong fans like myself won't go, then this project is doomed, in my opinion.
PhAZe
-
My concern is that JJ seems to have professional ADD, where he'd start one project off really well, then suddenly abandon it to start something else, while that first project suffers creatively (ie. The great first 2 seasons of Alias, then he leaves to work on Lost, resulting in season 3 and 4 being not as great - apparently he did the same thing with Felicity, to work on Alias). I'm just waiting for the critical backlash to begin on Lost.
-
This is such a potential no-win for Abrams. A recast TOS pre-quel satisfies no one. The TOS die-hards still want Shatner. The Next Gen cast has aged past its prime. I think only DS9 loyalists (me, included) would come to a Ds9-cast movie. And a Voyager movie wouldn't fly.
But if you start a new cast Post TNG/DS9/VOY- you're still in uncharted waters.
I hope for a post-TOS (re-cast)/pre-ST:TMP story (That of course, DOESN'T violate ST:II-X & TNG canon.
--------
In the battle between "good" and "evil," "evil" usually wins, unless "good" is very, very careful."
Dr. Leonard McCoy.
(1)
| 
