# Star Trek: Enterprise has been canceled



## DaveMage (Feb 2, 2005)

Story:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/020205_04.shtml

This makes me sad.


----------



## Wombat (Feb 2, 2005)

Doesn't surprise me.

Got just enough episodes so it can hit syndication.

The show never had high numbers, upset a lot of old school Trekkers, but also brought some new folks in.

Much as I have loved Trek over the years, I think the franchise needs a serious rest.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 2, 2005)

Well, we all saw it coming.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2005)

Just when it was finally showing some promise, too.  This season had been looking a whole lot better than before.  Manny Coto was doing a prety darned good job, imho.  Perhaps they found the right writing combination too late to punch the series up to big ratings, but they could have shown how a series can improve over time. 

I'm not one who thinks that the franchise really needs a rest.  I don't think it would serve any purpose, unless it takes that much time to put together a good writing team.


----------



## Laurel (Feb 2, 2005)

ti started off okay and just kept dropping.  More people complained and more stopped watching.  They didn't have much hope of keeping it going to long.

It means a cost reduction if you are trying to collect the box sets when they come out   Compared to the other trek series sets.

I wonder if this is the end for the trek universe..... only movies from now on?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 2, 2005)

Until this season it was just more of the same Star Trek that was in TNG and other Trek shows of late.  So never really watched it as I had seen it all before.  Then this season they started going to stories that tied into classic trek more but it was too late.  

Trek should stay dead for awhile.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 2, 2005)

Aw hell. 

One less reason to own a teevee.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 2, 2005)

Laurel said:
			
		

> I wonder if this is the end for the trek universe..... only movies from now on?



Think it means a break from the everything trek for a few years, at least five if not ten.


----------



## Jamdin (Feb 2, 2005)

Blast it all! I was starting to enjoy the show again too


----------



## KnowTheToe (Feb 2, 2005)

I tried watching the show a few times last year and did not find it very engaging.  There was nothing fresh to it that really gave it a strong energy of its own.


----------



## Knightfall (Feb 2, 2005)

I thin it was destined to be cancelled. Too bad, the show seems better this year with more classic Trek storylines. Oh well, nothing to do but keep watching Battlestar Galactica. 

As for Trek on TV, I think the world needs a break from the franchise. A couple of years. They need to put together a different show that will appeal to fans and that doesn't re-write history. Perhaps a show about the exploits of the USS Relativity, in the far future. Maybe a classic era Star Trek animated show set in the time of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but that would focus on stories that involve the entire fleet, multiple worlds, and overlapping plot lines.

An Animated Star Trek Anthology TV Series, if you will.

Whatever they do next, however, they need to take some time and think about it. Don't just slap something together in order to have something Trek on the air.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Krieg (Feb 2, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> As for Trek on TV, I think the world needs a break from the franchise. A couple of years. They need to put together a different show that will appeal to fans and that doesn't re-write history. Perhaps a show about the exploits of the USS Relativity, in the far future. Maybe a classic era Star Trek animated show set in the time of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but that would focus on stories that involve the entire fleet, multiple worlds, and overlapping plot lines.





Yeah!...and they could have Kziniti & Slaver artifacts and....


...nah on second thought that would just be silly.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Feb 2, 2005)

I had heard that they were going to cancel it before this season, but struck a deal for one more so they could syndicate it.

And I have heard two conflicting rumors about the future: one said they were going to take a break from Star Trek for a number of years, the other said they were working on a new show centered around StarFleet Academy (that was quite a while ago, don't remember where I heard it).

Personally I would vote for a break.  Each successive series since DS9 has done less for me than the one before.  Maybe a little absence to make the heart grow fonder would be good.  That and some new blood willing to shake things up a little.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Feb 2, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I had heard that they were going to cancel it before this season, but struck a deal for one more so they could syndicate it.
> 
> And I have heard two conflicting rumors about the future: one said they were going to take a break from Star Trek for a number of years, the other said they were working on a new show centered around StarFleet Academy (that was quite a while ago, don't remember where I heard it).
> 
> Personally I would vote for a break.  Each successive series since DS9 has done less for me than the one before.  Maybe a little absence to make the heart grow fonder would be good.  That and some new blood willing to shake things up a little.



 I know that talk about a "Starfleet Academy" series has been going around forever.  In fact, I think it was one of the ideas that was supposedly being considered for the series that eventually became Enterprise.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 2, 2005)

Sorry about that.

Watch Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 2, 2005)

They're taking a break. They've pretty much said so. There's been a change in 
Paramount's top management and they're reshuffeling. They do not seem to have
made any decisions on the franchise's future.


----------



## ForceUser (Feb 2, 2005)

It's sad, but as much as I love Star Trek, it's been on life support since Voyager and it's time to let it rest. There is nothing new, engaging, or inspiring about the show anymore; all they do is rehash the same old tired ideas over and over. And I blame Rick Berman. He made Star Trek simultaneously hip and pedestrian.


----------



## reveal (Feb 2, 2005)

I was really excited when this first started, especially because Scott Bakula was going to play the captain. Then I watched it. He was awful. He acting was so wooden they could have replaced him with a marionette and no one would have noticed.   

I watch the first season and a coupe of episodes of the 2nd and never looked back. I'll rent the series DVDs from Netflix when they come out later this year, just to see what I missed.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 2, 2005)

Just as it was starting to get good, too... Oh, well...

I really do think its time for it to take a break, perhaps do some movies about another time in the Trek universe (Earth-Romulan war, Starfleet academy, for example). Maybe a pseudo-trilogy (by that, I mean 3 movies back-to-back that run together like Star Trek II, III and IV).

I think what spelled its doom when they've explored a lot technology-wise. I mean, Warp 10 being max? 29-th century Time Travelers? BAAAAAAAD.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Feb 2, 2005)

I kinda like the idea of a Star Trek show dedicated to the academy.  They could focus on the character aspect and the ramifications from the homecoming of Voyager and maybe even a few vetrans of DS9, VOyager and TNG would be willing to participate.


----------



## Villano (Feb 2, 2005)

This kind of sucks.  I don't get UPN and only got to see 2 episodes of Enterprise.  While they weren't the greatest things in the world, they didn't suck like, say, Voyager.  Honestly, I can't imagine how _that_  show lasted.


----------



## myrdden (Feb 2, 2005)

Well...can't say I'm surprised.  Too bad though that they fianlly found a writing team that at least tried to incorporate their stories into the larger Trek Universe.  This season so far has been much more satisfying than the previous two combined.


----------



## Green Knight (Feb 2, 2005)

As they say, good riddance to bad rubbish. Sorry to all those who were enjoying it, but I'm not going to miss it one bit. With any luck, if and when Paramount decides to try out a new Star Trek series, they'll keep Berman and Bragga FAR, FAR away from it! I really wish they'd have someone like JMS do a new Trek show. God knows he could make it entertaining, again. Oh well. For know, I'm just glad the whole thing's over. It's like what the Cynic over on CynicsCorner.org said. Star Trek isn't dead, but_ undead_! A shambling parody of what it was in life. Well, now it's been thankfully laid to rest.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 2, 2005)

Thank you...for everything.

Live Long and Prosper.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 2, 2005)

Like others have said, the new and improved Enterprise was too little, too late.  It's a shame to see the Star Trek franchise go out on a whimper, but I'm sure it'll be back again one day.  (Hollywood is pretty repetitive.)

My bet is that a few years down the line, we'll see a new Star Trek movie with a brand new cast, to test the waters.  It may or may not be a remake of Kirk and the original crew.  What I'd rather see is an anthology style TV show, like Outer Limits, set in the Star Trek universe.  They could have a few stories set in the Academy, a couple with Klingons, or Vulcans, some stories following up on the Voyager people back on earth again, and brand new stuff.  An anthology style show allows for big guest stars to do an episode or two, as feature characters instead of a minor role.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 2, 2005)

Mass market crap. good riddance.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 3, 2005)

I wonder who will fill Jeri Ryan and Jolene Blaloc's...er...shoes, as the next Star Trek Eye-Candy™.


----------



## James Heard (Feb 3, 2005)

Not to be too droll, but if _they _need anything filled I'm a dedicated and hard worker, and not shy.

Oh, you were talking about the series. Drat.


----------



## Mark (Feb 3, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> *Star Trek:Enterprise has been canceled*
> 
> Story:
> 
> ...




Yup.  It's a damned shame that it's been canceled.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 3, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Mass market crap. good riddance.



Right on. Give us more Proust and Fassbinder... wait, which Internet forum is this?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 3, 2005)

As much as I loved Next Generation, I think the farther they moved away from James T. Kirk, the Enterprise (1701), and the Federation, the more watered down the franchise became. It lived a good life. I'm not sad.

There is supposed to be a live action Star Wars TV series coming in a year or so. Between that and the new Battlestar Galactica, scifi will continue to live on.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 3, 2005)

Damn. Another show I liked cancelled. No wonder I rarely watch television programming anymore.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 3, 2005)

I'll miss the show because since B-5 left the air, it's been the only sci-fi show I've been interested in.

However, I think it was a mistake to go prequel.  Gene Roddenberry was all about the *future* and to put a series in the (relative) past kind of took the "what happens next" mystery out of things. 

Should Star Trek ever resurface on TV, I think it would need to be set in TNG's time, a few years after the events in "Nemesis."  They could kick it off with Picard's retirement or somesuch.  However, they should bring in a JMS-type who will give the show a kick in the pants, and change the style a bit.  Otherwise it may not get any more attention than it is currently.

Either way, I'm looking forward to the remainder of the Enterprise season.

(Of course, the real reason the show didn't succeed was that god-awful song in the opening credits.    )


----------



## Orius (Feb 3, 2005)

I think it's a shame too, but I'm not really surprised.  At least this last season had some good episodes.

I still say a lot of it's UPN's fault too.  Star Trek should have stayed on syndication where Roddenberry put it.  He got burned by networks twice, and learned his lesson.  Let's hope Berman has learned the lesson now too.  Sci-Fi rarely succeeds on network TV.  And when you got a wannabe network like UPN that doesn't even have affiliates in many parts of the country, well of course ratings will suck.  It didn't help that UPN found a programing niche that didn't really have a place for Star Trek.  What did they expect?

I think the big problem is the whole TCW idea they started out with.  Fans didn't connect.  They were expecting prequel material and we only started getting that in ernest this season.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 3, 2005)

I am dually dissappointed and happy.

The show was finally starting to really entertain me.  Watching 3 seasons of sub-par Trek was finally paying off.  Coto and the writers got back to basics and started to make it feel like a real show.  I hope that it goes off the air with a bang.  I will miss it.

On the other hand...

Even before Enterprise started I was calling for a break.  No Trek for at least 5 years, maybe more.  No movies, no TV, nothing.  Give the fans a break and let the desire for Trek start to build.  Make some anticipation.  Fire the shmucks currently in charge.  Release some videogames and novels to keep the hard-core folks happy.

Then after enough time has passed start to work on a new project but try and keep it hush-hush (as much as possible these days).  Get back to the roots of the show by setting it on the Enterprise.  Get an actor with some chops to play the captain, maybe someone with established cred.  It all flows around him.  Set it 2-3 generations after TNG.  Then hit us with a war.  Make it the Klingons or some other established race.  End the war within the first season or so.  Slowly introduce a new threat while peace is being re-established.  Get back some of the exploration aspects at this point.  Then hit us with another war.  Something that actually breaks the Federation.  Have the rest of the series pick up the pieces and fight back.

No time travel (even though I love it in general as a theme), no elaborate gimmick like "we have to get home" or somesuch.  Just flat-out Trek.  Do it in story arcs like late DS9 and this season's Enterprise.

Oh yeah, and get Jeff Combs to play either a regular cast member or one of the Big Bads.

Is this too much to ask?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 3, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> This kind of sucks.  I don't get UPN and only got to see 2 episodes of Enterprise.  While they weren't the greatest things in the world, they didn't suck like, say, Voyager.  Honestly, I can't imagine how _that_  show lasted.



For the first three seasons it did suck like _VOY_ (at least the latter seasons, when Rick Berman hired Brannon Braga as replacement executive producers).

Though their names are still there, they put Manny Coto in charge of this season's story lineup. He managed to quickly conclude the gawd-awful story arc of the third season, and put some good thoughtful stories this fourth season. It convinced me enough to like it. Had you asked me a year ago, and I'd would have agreed with Viacom's Chief Les Moonves's today's decision, but now I liked it.

Now I have no choice but to "persuade" Les Moonves to change his mind, or hope his "replacement" will reverse the decision.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 3, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and get Jeff Combs to play either a regular cast member or one of the Big Bads.



Are you kidding me? I like him as Shran the Andorian. I also like him as Quark's Ferengi rival, Brunt.


----------



## Allanon (Feb 3, 2005)

Great and good riddance. Enterprise was to Star Trek what Episode 1 was to Star Wars. A nice try with great eyecandy but a bad story and horrible acting.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 3, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me? I like him as Shran the Andorian. I also like him as Quark's Ferengi rival, Brunt.



 I kid you not.  Combs is awesome.  

I just had another idea:  A Garak spin-off.  It would work.  Seriously.

Star Trek:  Tailor Assassin


----------



## qstor (Feb 3, 2005)

I think its very bad news. The show was just getting good with Cottos writing and the Stevens writing. Berman hasnt been good for the show. maybe Ronald Moore and Cotto can save Trek.

Mike


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Feb 3, 2005)

I am glad to give it a break, some time to recharge and get new ideas.  One of the problems, in my opinion, with the continuing Trek Franchise, was that the continuity issue was pulling it down.  Now, I gave up on Enterprise so maybe they have changed things, but the constant time travel issues were, in my mind, all done solely to avoid continuity issues with the later series.  

When they come back (and you know they will one day) I hope they jump about 40 - 50 years after TNG.  Give them time to allow for the universe to change some, and shake things up.  The Vulcans had a cultural revolution and gave up on logic and control, became passionate, highly emotional people, rejoined with their Romulan cousins and romped across the Kingon empire in revenge for past deeds that the Vulcan people repressed for so long...


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 3, 2005)

Bad news indeed, but like others, I'm not surprised. This was a long time coming. After the first couple of dreadful seasons, the improvement this season was definitely too late.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 3, 2005)

Okay, they don't cancel Enterprise after last season. Then they move it to a worse time slot and watch an exciting new sci-fi series launched on the same night on a rival network -- and then cancel the show because the new writers failed to immediately improve ratings. And they wonder why people don't understand the TV business...


----------



## Wolf72 (Feb 3, 2005)

bah! ... I wish they could go back and undo Voyager and replace it Enterprise!


----------



## myrdden (Feb 3, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> For the first three seasons it did suck like _VOY_ (at least the latter seasons, when Rick Berman hired Brannon Braga as replacement executive producers).




I thought the first season was decent for a new show and really showed some promise (minus the TCW stuff).  The second and third season though...different story.



> He managed to quickly conclude the gawd-awful story arc of the third season, and put some good thoughtful stories this fourth season.




I never did see the season premier.  What did happen to the TCW story line?  Or should I ask?


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 3, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> I never did see the season premier.  What did happen to the TCW story line?  Or should I ask?




Nazis and time-travelling aliens. 'Nuff said.

Storm Front, Part I
Storm Front, Part II


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 3, 2005)

RE: The Star Trek well is dry.


The well is not the problem, it's the water inside that's lacking. The well is as sturdy
as ever. There's no limitations to what is able to be done with any franchise. There's
always something new to be done (or old done in new ways). Look at any long lasting 
comic book series. Batman/Superman/Spider-Man/X-Men all have had their good and
bad periods, but they always come back with new good stories.

Batman had been horrible for decades, a joke, until Dennis O'Neil brought him back 
to his Dark Knight roots in the 70s and changed him into *the* comic book franchise. 
Rivalled only by the X-Men, another similar case, which were Stan Lee's least inspired 
creation and Marvel's slowest seller, but Claremont sculpted them into the market's 
best selling book in the 80s. Of course, it then sucked again in the 90s, but when Grant
Morrison took over in 2000 it was good again. JMS and Bendis on Spider-Man. Busiek 
on Avengers. Giffen/DeMatties on JLA. Morrison on JLA. Simonson on Thor. Jurgens on 
Thor. Same story again and again.

Creations don't get stale, only the creators (and possibly, the fans).

Heck, Manny Coto was on the right track. Just bring in fresh blood. Change the water.


----------



## myrdden (Feb 3, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Nazis and time-travelling aliens. 'Nuff said.
> 
> Storm Front, Part I
> Storm Front, Part II




Wow....

I am glad I missed those episodes.  Talk about horrible.

Poor Manny...he was fighting an up hill battle when he took over wasn't he?


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 3, 2005)

I watched Enterprise off and on for the first season.  Then I got cable and never looked back.  I thought the acting was good, but the stories were mostly boring.

Hopefully, the next series will launch in 2014 and will be back to the "good" Trek.  Although the NG episodes haven't aged well.  Having seen SG-1 since then has *really* raised my standards for writing, and NG just doesn't cut it any more.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 3, 2005)

"Enterprise" sorta went the opposite way of "Andromeda."

Enterprise: First 2 seasons: worse ones; 3rd season: better; 4th season: great. Cancelled
Andromeda: First 2 seasons: great; 3rd season: still good because Robert Hewitt Wolfe left some good stories before he left; 4th season: crap (Hercules in Space). Still going...

I stopped watching it after the first few episodes of season 3. I had to check on their website to see if it's still airing.


----------



## Acid_crash (Feb 3, 2005)

I'm bummed.  This show was getting so much better this season.  Putting it on UPN was a death nail from the very beginning though.  Looking at all the other shows and their focus Enterprise does not fit in with their schedule one bit.  They should have just moved it to another station after this season.

I think what they should do is do something they have NOT done before.  Have a Trek show focus on a different faction completely.  Set it a few years after Nemesis, and focus the show entirely on the Klingons.

Having a Star Trek: Klingons show would be a great way to change the pace of the show.  Change the focus from the Federation, put it on another race.  Show the Klingon Empire, their cultures, and how they view things, their lives, etc.  

Why does it have to be the Federation?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 3, 2005)

qstor said:
			
		

> I think its very bad news. The show was just getting good with Cottos writing and the Stevens writing. Berman hasnt been good for the show. maybe Ronald Moore and Cotto can save Trek.



Ironic that Ron D. Moore is producing the re-imagined _BSG_ which airs on the same night as this season's _Enterprise_ run by Manny Coto.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 3, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> I thought the first season was decent for a new show and really showed some promise (minus the TCW stuff).  The second and third season though...different story.



The first season wasn't decent, IMNSHO. The moment they showed a Klingon on Earth in the "Broken Bow" episode, I knew this is Braga's signature way of killing the show. You know what makes it worse for me personally? I gave him a second chance to prove me wrong after the _VOY_ fiasco he made.




			
				myrdden said:
			
		

> I never did see the season premier.  What did happen to the TCW story line?  Or should I ask?



Don't know if it concluded the TCW since we don't know who that mysterious villain, but we managed to witness of that Suliban ally. After that, we didn't go back to that again. Personally, I don't care if that will ever be concluded, I don't want to revisit the TCW arc.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 3, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Bad news indeed, but like others, I'm not surprised. This was a long time coming. After the first couple of dreadful seasons, the improvement this season was definitely too late.



Is it truly too late? I mean you stated there is improvement this season.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 4, 2005)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Having a Star Trek: Klingons show would be a great way to change the pace of the show.  Change the focus from the Federation, put it on another race.  Show the Klingon Empire, their cultures, and how they view things, their lives, etc.
> 
> Why does it have to be the Federation?



Sci-Fi shows that featured mainly aliens usually don't work, unless it's a comedy where the alien observe or experience human behaviors and foibles, like _Third Rock from the Sun._

Even _Roswell_ didn't fare well, having switched network and cancelled after three seasons.

You need to have human characters that can relate to human viewers.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 4, 2005)

Perhaps Trek does need a break, but maybe they should've gone the full 7 seasons. 3 more...


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 4, 2005)

I'm sad. The show had some great episodes and some real stinkers; I felt like I was going to get a surprise of some kind every episode, and just had to watch out for if it was good or bad.

IMO putting it back in time removed a lot of "magic wand" scenarios that I hated about TNG, DS9 and Voyager, but of course it caused continuity problems. The biggest one being the Vulcans... I simply couldn't stand them, especially T'pol. I would love to know why they chose such a good-looking woman to be a _Vulcan_ series lead. They came up with all kinds of goofy ways to have her show off flesh and seduce Trip (in really stupid ways, too).


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Feb 4, 2005)

You can picture me as the gopher from Caddyshack dancing away to the lustful strains of "I'm All Right".

Face it - Enterprise was _awful_.  I love watching Trekkers defend it by saying 'well the first 3 seasons were bad but this *fourth* season; o-boy it's rockin'!".  3 years of crap and one year of not quite crap.  And the only reason it lasted this long was because of the 'Star Trek' label smeared on its bloated, wart encrusted face.

Enterprise is dead.  And good riddance.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 4, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> I love watching Trekkers defend it by saying 'well the first 3 seasons were bad but this *fourth* season; o-boy it's rockin'!".  3 years of crap and one year of not quite crap.



What do you mean "not quite crap"? I mean it's bad enough they're in a deep hole, you think they should pull out some kind of epic story to fly out? That's a stoopid and wrong approach for _Trek,_ and you know it. They've been climbing out of the hole with good stories this season. Not epic, but good enough to impress even me, after those 3 years of crap. And I'm very hard to impress when it comes to _Trek._

Nah. Someone said they're cancelling _Trek_ as well as _WWE Smackdown!_ (which have always done better rating because trailer park audience outnumbers sci-fi fans) because they want to change UPN's format.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 4, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Although the NG episodes haven't aged well.  Having seen SG-1 since then has *really* raised my standards for writing, and NG just doesn't cut it any more.



This just goes to show how greatly tastes vary.  When I think of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_, I think of:

Picard being tortured by Cardassians.  "There. Are. _FOUR_. Lights!"

Picard returning to his brother's vinyard in France after being mentally raped by the Borg, and crawling in the mud, crying, at what they'd done to him.

Data creating a daughter for himself, only to watch her die when he is unable to save her from a critical malfunction.

And there are many more episodes besides those I've listed which were incredibly well-done.  The writing on TNG has always been top-notch.  And so has the acting.

In contrast, I've found SG-1 to be nothing short of a hack-job.  Jack O'Neill doesn't have the leadership skills to guide a group of cub scouts through the service line at McDonalds, let alone command an "elite" expeditionary force across alien worlds, with the fate of the Earth on the line.

*shrug*  Different strokes, I guess. 

As for "Trek should take a break," well, I've _had_ my break.  _Voyager_ and _Enterprise_ were garbage, so I didn't watch them.  I'm ready for a well-written, well-executed Star Trek series _now_.  Or at least, as soon as possible.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Feb 4, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> What do you mean "not quite crap"?



I meant exactly what I typed.  This season, while far from being good is not quite the pure crap that the last 3 seasons were.



> I mean it's bad enough they're in a deep hole, you think they should pull out some kind of epic story to fly out? That's a stoopid and wrong approach for _Trek,_ and you know it. They've been climbing out of the hole with good stories this season. Not epic, but good enough to impress even me, after those 3 years of crap. And I'm very hard to impress when it comes to _Trek._




Who said I wanted some grand story arc?  I don't remember typing that.  If you are truly impressed with the current episodes then I would venture to say you are not quite so hard to impress when it comes to Star Trek as you believe.  Or perhaps the garbage that they have thrown at us for _three yearsa_ has dulled your tastes.


> Nah. Someone said they're cancelling _Trek_ as well as _WWE Smackdown!_ (which have always done better rating because trailer park audience outnumbers sci-fi fans) because they want to change UPN's format.




'Someone'.  Oh, well I guess that clears up that.  I must have been foolish to think it was because they had chased away so many viewers with their _three years_ of terrible TV.


----------



## Belen (Feb 4, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> In contrast, I've found SG-1 to be nothing short of a hack-job.  Jack O'Neill doesn't have the leadership skills to guide a group of cub scouts through the service line at McDonalds, let alone command an "elite" expeditionary force across alien worlds, with the fate of the Earth on the line.




Thank you!  I am so tired of the RDA O"Neill.  The man would never have made it through basic.  No one who wants to "stick it to the man" serves in the US Special Forces!  While I like the rest of the cast, RDA sucks donkey nuts!


----------



## reveal (Feb 4, 2005)

Looks like the artist from Real Life didn't like it either. 

http://www.reallifecomics.com/20050204_1374.png


----------



## myrdden (Feb 4, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The first season wasn't decent, IMNSHO. The moment they showed a Klingon on Earth in the "Broken Bow" episode, I knew this is Braga's signature way of killing the show. You know what makes it worse for me personally? I gave him a second chance to prove me wrong after the _VOY_ fiasco he made.




Y'know - I had actually forgotten how the series started.  I agree it wasn't a stellar beginning, and the continuity/TCW stuff was displeasing (and sometimes aggrivating) for me, but I found the first season at least worth watching.  The second and third seaons though really wasn't worth my time.

At least I didn't watch VOY!



> Don't know if it concluded the TCW since we don't know who that mysterious villain, but we managed to witness of that Suliban ally. After that, we didn't go back to that again. Personally, I don't care if that will ever be concluded, I don't want to revisit the TCW arc.




Agreed.


----------



## Villano (Feb 4, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nah. Someone said they're cancelling _Trek_ as well as _WWE Smackdown!_ (which have always done better rating because trailer park audience outnumbers sci-fi fans) because they want to change UPN's format.




Actually, from what I understand, the Smackdown thing is a bit different.  What someone from UPN said was that they were considering not renewing the show when their contract expired in a few years.  People in the TV industry say it sounds like pre-contract negotiation tactics.  Most likely Smackdown will be renewed.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 4, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Is it truly too late? I mean you stated there is improvement this season.



Apparently, since the show was cancelled and the most recent episode had the lowest ratings yet for Enterprise.

So, yes.


----------



## myrdden (Feb 4, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Apparently, since the show was cancelled and the most recent episode had the lowest ratings yet for Enterprise.
> 
> So, yes.




Yes...it's very much is a case of "too little, too late".


----------



## LordVyreth (Feb 4, 2005)

To be honest, I think I liked Season 3 the best.  I guess I'm just a sucker for the season-long story arcs, even if it wasn't exactly up to the caliber of your average Buffy season.  There was just too many goofy bits from this season (alien Nazis?  The totally impossible final battle in the Khan-esque storyline?)

If they do make a new Star Trek, I'd also like to see it a few generations of even centuries after TNG and company.  Among other things, I'm hoping it'll take the technology a few levels farther, letting them incorporate a few logical improvements that the earlier series have been unable to add due to their 1960s origin.  I admit I got into Trek late, so I never really got into some of the anachronisms established (nobody watching a movie made after 1960, the total demise of the video game industry (especially pre-Holodek,) and the Internet, the lack of automated defenses and scouts despite how often starships get boarded and infected with strange diseases, etc.)  

Another more unique idea I had is the possibility of two starships, which start out on opposing sides of some sort of intergalactic conflict.  The "good" and "evil" ships would alternate episodes, but the actions one crew takes will often affect the other, and both ships could be featured in major episodes.  They could even fight and might even kill members of each other's crew, but it should be obvious early that it's not an obvious black and white situation.  For example, it might be between an authorized Fedaration ship after the Fedaration has grown corrupt and complacent in places and an outlaw ship generally opposed to the Fedaration but more interested in being left alone, and consitantly failing to do so.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 4, 2005)

I don't watch a lot of tv.

I never watched this.

It doesn't make me sad or happy, but does give me some hope that when the female lead companies that there's no writing involved, that perhaps the next Trek series won't blatantly try to rely on sex to sell.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 4, 2005)

LordVyreth said:
			
		

> Another more unique idea I had is the possibility of two starships, which start out on opposing sides of some sort of intergalactic conflict.  The "good" and "evil" ships would alternate episodes, but the actions one crew takes will often affect the other, and both ships could be featured in major episodes.  They could even fight and might even kill members of each other's crew, but it should be obvious early that it's not an obvious black and white situation.  For example, it might be between an authorized Fedaration ship after the Fedaration has grown corrupt and complacent in places and an outlaw ship generally opposed to the Fedaration but more interested in being left alone, and consitantly failing to do so.




Sounds like an extension of the Federation/Maquis concept from early Voyager.  I dare say it will never happen under the name Star Trek.  Star Trek is more into the black-and-white morality plays, with DS9 being the most daring in going to morally ambivalent places.  Star Trek has become mainstream, and as such, they'll stick with playing it safe and being conservative.  They won't push the envelope.

A few people have stated a desire to see Star Trek jump a few generations ahead.  I think that would create more problems than it solves.  First, I don't see a need to completely divorce a new show from the TNG/DS9/VOY era.  It all but rules out most guest-star appearances by familiar faces (except using time travel or descendants), which I don't see as particularly a good thing.  Second, and more importantly, Star Trek technology is suspect and problematic enough as it is.  The universal translators are already amazingly convenient.  Travelling faster than light is something you're not likely to see in sci-fi shows any more, seeing as it's widely believed to be impossible (as opposed to wormholes, which are merely improbable).  The holodeck technology is fairly far fetched, and those episodes have been done to death.  Artificial intelligence in Star Trek is unbelievably anthropomorphic, which I understand is one of the show's classic themes, but again, they've gone to the well way too often on this one.  Although it would make an interesting feature film, perhaps, we really don't need to see a whole series with even more futuristic technology.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 4, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Apparently, since the show was cancelled and the most recent episode had the lowest ratings yet for Enterprise.



So, the reason for the cancellation rested on the most recent episode's lowest rating? Why didn't they cancel the series sooner, when they didn't hire Manny Coto? The last 3 seasons were the worst, even for me! Why didn't they cancel it then? Manny Coto didn't make it worse, Dumb & Dumber did!!! 

I thought I could not hate anyone more than B&B. Now I do: Les Moonves.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I am glad to give it a break, some time to recharge and get new ideas.




The flaw in this position is quite simple - if you rely on a specific single person or small group to do all the writing, then they may need a rest in order to get some new ideas.  So, a single author might need to take a break after writing three novels in a series, yes.  But Trek isn't dependant on any one particular person.  

You can hire new writers and producers, and have instant new ideas.  I think Manny Coto's performance this season proves that you don't need time to get fresh ideas and solid writing.  You just need the right people in the right chairs.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 4, 2005)

I like the improved Enterprise this season and I'm disappointed at its cancellation, but it's hard to blame the execs for doing it. The ratings just aren't there. More people _should_ be watching, but they aren't.

Star Trek is not dead. DS9 proved post-Roddenberry Trek was possible. It was a completely original and different series, but it was still Trek, and it was great TV.

This "break" talk is nonsense. Trek doesn't need a break. Now that the new, betterise is gone, it needs a new show. Preferably moving the Trek timeline forward. And with the right people at the helm.

Without Trek, there would be no sci-fi as we know it. Without Trek, there won't be a single show on network TV that occurs in space (as far as I know anyway). We need Trek, but we need Trek done right.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 4, 2005)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> Without Trek, there would be no sci-fi as we know it. Without Trek, there won't be a single show on network TV that occurs in space (as far as I know anyway). We need Trek, but we need Trek done right.




An overstatement of the facts.  Like Tolkien is incredibly important to fantasy, Star Trek is incredibly important to space opera.  However, your statement just isn't true.  Star Wars -- which was developed mostly from fairy tales, not sci-fi -- proved that sci-fi, or at least what the general public thinks is sci-fi, can be profitable.  Star Trek the movie only had a chance after Star Wars was made.  TNG only had a chance after *that* was profitable.

Important to sci-fi television?  Yes, very.  Indispensible?  No.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 4, 2005)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> Without Trek, there would be no sci-fi as we know it. Without Trek, there won't be a single show on network TV that occurs in space (as far as I know anyway). We need Trek, but we need Trek done right.




Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 4, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Battlestar Galactica.



 That, too!


----------



## Urklore (Feb 4, 2005)

If they do another series, they should do one focused around a different race. A series based on the Klingon race would rock as ratings show that everytime an ep involves Klingons it gets high ratings. Just my 3 cents of course.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 4, 2005)

I was really looking forward to _Enterprise_... Then I watched it and... well, it wasn't good.

In plain fact it was bad, very bad. All the problems that I have with science fiction shows wrapped up with a ribbon. Whey the heck can't they get decent writers for most S.F.  shows? The last one I enjoyed was B5, and even there the first and last seasons weren't exactly great. (Though the other seasons _were!_)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 4, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Whey the heck can't they get decent writers for most S.F.  shows? The last one I enjoyed was B5, and even there the first and last seasons weren't exactly great.




Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Whey the heck can't they get decent writers for most S.F.  shows?




Well, I think there's a few things going here...

First, really good writers are not the most common things around.  You have to hunt them up, and find the right venue for them - a person who is a great writer for a mundane prime-time drama may not be suited for a genre show, and vice versa.

Then comes the simple fact that the writers are not necessarily at fault for everything.  Producers and network execs have a great deal of influence on what goes into a show.  And sometimes they don't know what they are talking about.

Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise, Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, Babylon 5 and B5: Crusade, Farscape and Firefly all showed the figerprints of meddling (in various ways) by non-writers that cost the shows dearly.  So, don't lay everything on the writers.


----------



## Welverin (Feb 4, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I kid you not.  Combs is awesome.
> 
> I just had another idea:  A Garak spin-off.  It would work.  Seriously.
> 
> Star Trek:  Tailor Assassin




Someone needs to start working on this immediately!

Tough I suggest a name change, something more catchy, say Plain Simple Garek.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 5, 2005)

Actually, pretty much *everyone* involved might muck up a storyline.  Even the actors, if they have some clout.  Sure, some actors have good ideas and do come up with good additions to the story.  Not all do.  And when you get to producers, pray for mercy.  The ideas *they* have can be truly painful to behold...

So, yeah, writers do get an unfair share of the rap for bad TV shows.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise, Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, Babylon 5 and B5: Crusade, Farscape and Firefly all showed the figerprints of meddling (in various ways) by non-writers that cost the shows dearly.  So, don't lay everything on the writers.



Other than the compression of the story arc in season 4 due to the possibility of not getting a fifth season, B5 was remarkably free from meddling. JMS has mentioned that the last note he got from his bosses about the show was some time in early season 2.

Now, Crusade... that's another story.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 5, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Other than the compression of the story arc in season 4 due to the possibility of not getting a fifth season, B5 was remarkably free from meddling.




Yes, but that "remarkably free" did a number on the last two seasons of the show.  As I've heard it told, in order to get the show to a good stopping place, they had to compress season 4 by about 25% - meaning that we lost something like five episodes, which is a lot for a plot-heavy show like B5.  And that meant that season 5 was notably thin.  While JMS made it work, it would have been notably better if he'd been allowed to run his course properly.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise, Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, Babylon 5 and B5: Crusade, Farscape and Firefly all showed the figerprints of meddling (in various ways) by non-writers that cost the shows dearly.  So, don't lay everything on the writers.



Not all writers but writers in collusion with non-writers: For example, Brannon Braga and Rick Berman.

Brannon Braga is a good writer if he had someone editing his work, but when he moved up to executive producer position, no one check up on his work. Any episode that have "Story By Brannon Braga" credit always end up as the crappy episode in _VOY_ and _ENT._


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, I think there's a few things going here...
> 
> First, really good writers are not the most common things around.  You have to hunt them up, and find the right venue for them - a person who is a great writer for a mundane prime-time drama may not be suited for a genre show, and vice versa.
> 
> ...




Heh, strange as it sounds I am _not_ blaming the writers (look what I actually wrote) I am blaming the people who chose those writers. Which very definitely is covered by your phrase of 'meddling'. I agree that there are few good genre writers, but many shows, including STtNG deliberately avoided using the ones that are out there. I honestly could not enjoy Next Degradation because of the technobabble. At least most of the terms in B5 meant something close to what they were trying to say. (And I say that I didn't enjoy STtNG despite the fact that I thought that the actors were largely superior to those in the original series.)

I have not seen Battlestar Galactica, but as a child I remember really not liking that show either...

The Auld Grump


----------



## Umbran (Feb 5, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I have not seen Battlestar Galactica, but as a child I remember really not liking that show either...




 Well, don't let the old show dissuade you.  The new show uses the same basic premise, and a few of the character concepts.  But the concepts are given far more plausible background support, and the people are, imho, far more real than in the original show.


----------



## Orius (Feb 6, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The first season wasn't decent, IMNSHO. The moment they showed a Klingon on Earth in the "Broken Bow" episode, I knew this is Braga's signature way of killing the show. You know what makes it worse for me personally? I gave him a second chance to prove me wrong after the _VOY_ fiasco he made.




See, that never really bothered me.  The TCW plot element was more lame than the Klingon by far.  I know fans thought putting the Klingons in Enterprise was a bad idea, but I don't really think it was.  Klingons are one of the most well known species in Trek, even the mundanes have heard of Klingons.  So I don't think it was unreasonable.


----------



## Orius (Feb 6, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> IMO putting it back in time removed a lot of "magic wand" scenarios that I hated about TNG, DS9 and Voyager, but of course it caused continuity problems. The biggest one being the Vulcans... I simply couldn't stand them, especially T'pol. I would love to know why they chose such a good-looking woman to be a _Vulcan_ series lead. They came up with all kinds of goofy ways to have her show off flesh and seduce Trip (in really stupid ways, too).




I never had a problem with Enterprise Vulcans being somewhat hypocritical.  The Vulcan storyline from earlier this season also cleaned it up pretty well, though the plot twist at the end wasn't really what I was expecting.  Personally, I thought Vulcans were better with some flaws than the more "perfect" Vulcans from classic Trek.  However, all the TNA with T'Pol just because B&B thought she was hot, and because Moonves thinks sex = ratings was stupid.  It's so obviously out of character, it's not really all that shocking that Blalock bitched about it (not helping that she's supposedly a Trek fan to begin with, and knows it's OOC).


----------



## Orius (Feb 6, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> This just goes to show how greatly tastes vary.  When I think of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_, I think of:
> 
> Picard being tortured by Cardassians.  "There. Are. _FOUR_. Lights!"
> 
> ...




TNG had its share of good episodes.  It's had its share of really lame episodes too.  I think the worst was the episode from the last season that revealed warp drive was doing bad things to space.  While an obvious commentary on environmental issues, it was a stupid episode in the first place because warp drive is a pretty central element to how Star Trek works in the first place.  



> In contrast, I've found SG-1 to be nothing short of a hack-job.  Jack O'Neill doesn't have the leadership skills to guide a group of cub scouts through the service line at McDonalds, let alone command an "elite" expeditionary force across alien worlds, with the fate of the Earth on the line.




I like SG-1 myself.  It consistanly produces good episodes, and tends to do a lot of the same storylines that Trek does without seeming overly sappy or saccharine.  I do agree that O'Neill  can be far too flippant and silly sometimes to take seriously.  That's really RDA's fault, although I don't see it as being bad enough to really kill the show.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 6, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Heh, strange as it sounds I am _not_ blaming the writers (look what I actually wrote) I am blaming the people who chose those writers.




Well, you asked why they couldn't find decent writers for SF shows.  I'm saying that in many cases the writers are just fine, but are hamstrung by other forces.  _Andromeda_ is perhaps the best example.  Sorbo wanted a change in teh show - from that point on, the show was gonna stink no matter who was writing it, because Sorbo's vision is lousy.


----------



## Orius (Feb 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, I think there's a few things going here...
> 
> First, really good writers are not the most common things around.  You have to hunt them up, and find the right venue for them - a person who is a great writer for a mundane prime-time drama may not be suited for a genre show, and vice versa.




Not to mention that some — err make that *most* — primetime dramas and sitcoms tend to be rather uninspired in the first place.  A lot of them have crappy writing too.  Look how many new fall shows are off the air by January.  Even shows that manage to survive often recycle the same batches of writers and not all of them are good writers in the first place.  

  And let's face it how many of the shows are really all that differnet?  You might have different locations and different casts and characters but the types of shows are essentially the same, and have been te same since the beginning of television.  With dramas you've got cop shows, hospital shows, lawyer shows, action shows, and family shows.  Westerns used to be a drama staple, but are basically dead these days.  Sitcoms you've got office/workplace sitcoms, the group of friends sitcoms and family sitcoms.  Most the fictional television that's on the networks even today fall into one of these categories.  After 55 or so years of television, really how much is there left to do?  



> Then comes the simple fact that the writers are not necessarily at fault for everything.  Producers and network execs have a great deal of influence on what goes into a show.  And sometimes they don't know what they are talking about.




I have no respect for producers.  And I certainly don't think that most of them have any brains.  IMO, the only time a Hollywood exec shows anything even remotely resembling cunning is when he's seducing a naive young woman:

Aspiring actress: I don't know, I really don't think I should have sex with you.

Exec:  Nonsense, it'll help your career!  You want to be famous don't you?

Aspiring actress: Yeah, you're right.  Ok, I'll do it.



> Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise, Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, Babylon 5 and B5: Crusade, Farscape and Firefly all showed the figerprints of meddling (in various ways) by non-writers that cost the shows dearly.  So, don't lay everything on the writers.




Well, I don't really know about Farscape and Firefly, but I certainly know what you mean in all the other cases.  Hell, the original Trek series had problems with NBC meddling, and that was one of the reasons Roddenberry turned his back on the networks in the first place.  And i can think of several other examples of promising Sci-Fi shows with good premises that were sunk by networks thinking they knew how to improve ratings.  Anyone remember SeaQuest?


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 6, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Someone needs to start working on this immediately!
> 
> Tough I suggest a name change, something more catchy, say Plain Simple Garek.



Works for me.  I just want more of my favorite Trek character ever.


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 6, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Mass market crap. good riddance.




It may have been crap but Enterprise was practically the opposite of mass market, for TV.  It was on a channel which many poeple don't get and hardly any people watch (the channel, let alone Enterprise).


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 6, 2005)

There was another Trek show?

Seriously - Bragga and his cronies are a symptom of a the much larger illness of Paramount. Can you name their last blockbuster movie?  I'm pretty sure it's been nearly 5 years.  Unless things are turned around Paramount will be the next studio to either die out or be absorbed by a competitor.  Every project - not just Star Trek - that studio has touched in the last 5 or so years has withered and wilted.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 6, 2005)

That assume parent company Viacom want to sell Paramount, *Michael Morris.*

Unless you hear of a takeover of Viacom by, oh I don't know, Time-Warner?


----------



## driver8 (Feb 6, 2005)

Well.. I too have mixed feelings. However, I really havent enjoyed Trek since DS9 went off the air. I dont know maybe its that familiarity breed contempt, or that the franchise has become too franchisey and formulaic. The actors have seemd to be the same, with too little chemistry. The performances are all good, and the stories technically well done.. but it all seems mostly boring. Theres no tension, or any sense of anything new happening. /shrug

Myself I never liked the prequel idea. I thought it aped too much the Star Wars phenomena and wouldnt pay off- and the shows creators made it worse by totally screwing with "canon" material.

I will miss Jeffrey Combs however. His Shram character is the best thing to come out of the series.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, you asked why they couldn't find decent writers for SF shows.  I'm saying that in many cases the writers are just fine, but are hamstrung by other forces.  _Andromeda_ is perhaps the best example.  Sorbo wanted a change in teh show - from that point on, the show was gonna stink no matter who was writing it, because Sorbo's vision is lousy.




Hercules. In. Space.



			
				Orius said:
			
		

> Aspiring actress: I don't know, I really don't think I should have sex with you.
> 
> Exec:  Nonsense, it'll help your career!  You want to be famous don't you?
> 
> Aspiring actress: Yeah, you're right.  Ok, I'll do it.




I KNEW there was a reason why I wanted to go into show business .


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 7, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> It's had its share of really lame episodes too.  I think the worst was the episode from the last season that revealed warp drive was doing bad things to space.  While an obvious commentary on environmental issues, it was a stupid episode in the first place because warp drive is a pretty central element to how Star Trek works in the first place.



I agree.  It'd have worked much better based around a heretofore unknown world developing a heartofore unknown method of space travel.







> I like SG-1 myself.  It consistanly produces good episodes, and tends to do a lot of the same storylines that Trek does without seeming overly sappy or saccharine.  I do agree that O'Neill  can be far too flippant and silly sometimes to take seriously.  That's really RDA's fault, although I don't see it as being bad enough to really kill the show.



I'm not attacking people who like the show.  I knew a guy who liked the show a lot, and we'd occasionally talk about it.  In the end, though, he wound up agreeing that the show isn't really well-written at all.  That didn't invalidate him liking it.  Personally, I like the show in small doses myself.  I think the production design is fantastic.  I like the idea of Earth pantheons being based on various alien races / Goa'uld factions, etc.

But to claim that SG-1's writing "raised the bar for sci-fi" strikes me as ludicrous.  It does not have that kind of quality in anything other than design.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 7, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> But to claim that SG-1's writing "raised the bar for sci-fi" strikes me as ludicrous.  It does not have that kind of quality in anything other than design.



I agree, yet _SG-1_ managed to entertain me than _Enterprise's_ first 3 seasons. It does not make me feel like I have wasted one hour a week. For some reasons, I can stomach Colonel O'Neill's dry humor.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> With any luck, if and when Paramount decides to try out a new Star Trek series, they'll keep Berman and Bragga FAR, FAR away from it!




My thoughts exactly.  Those guys were poison to Enterprise.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2005)

Hercules. In. Space.

Alien damsel in distress: I don't know, I really don't think I should have sex with you.

Dylan: Nonsense, it'll help your planet! You want to help your planet don't you?

Alien damsel: Yeah, you're right. Ok, I'll do it.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2005)

Re Stargate SG-1; it's primarily a comedy show that spends most of its time satirising itself and the genre in general.  And unlike Hercules & Xena it does this consistently well.  I love it.  OTOH SG: Atlantis lacks the humour and my wife & I gave up on it after 1 ep.


----------



## ddvmor (Feb 7, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> Westerns used to be a drama staple, but are basically dead these days.




Deadwood.  That was a great show - I hope it gets a second season.

We had enormous fun taking bets on how many seconds into the episode we'd have to wait for the 'c' word.


----------



## qstor (Feb 7, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> See, that never really bothered me.  The TCW plot element was more lame than the Klingon by far.  I know fans thought putting the Klingons in Enterprise was a bad idea, but I don't really think it was.  Klingons are one of the most well known species in Trek, even the mundanes have heard of Klingons.  So I don't think it was unreasonable.





Broken Bow kinda bothered me as well from the beginning. IIRC the contact between the Klingons and the humans was supposed to be disasterous, Archers trip to Kronos was hardly that.

I think now that the show is showing some *umph* from writing by Manny Cotto and the Stevens. But from the start, Berman and Braga kinda did the same old thing without regards to TOS and it was a SHAME.

Peronally, I dont think Trek needs a break. If there was some decent writing without all the techobabble like Galactica or Farscape then the show would prosper. But Berman and Bragas hands all over Trek ruins it IMHO. Ronald Moore and Manny Cotto together would make Enterprise shine.

Mike


----------



## Wolf72 (Feb 7, 2005)

oh well, the last few episodes weren't that bad, and I like all the characters and actors too.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 8, 2005)

Wolf72 said:
			
		

> bah! ... I wish they could go back and undo Voyager and replace it Enterprise!





Ain't that the truth!!! Voyager sucked major ass! I'd have watched Enterprise had it been on better nights. Wednesdays and Saturdays (when it airs here) are bad nights for me. And, even if I tape it, I don't go back and watch the tapes. I'm lazy that way. And have forgotten to tape it since season 1 ended.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Re Stargate SG-1; it's primarily a comedy show that spends most of its time satirising itself and the genre in general.



Well, there were a few episodes that featured that (e.g., "Wormhole X-Treme!") but it can't be helped. The DeLuise Brothers pretty much took over the script writing and sometimes directing. Of course, any old geezers here would know of their patriarch, Dom DeLuise, who often starred in comedy films with Burt Reynolds. The younguns might remember _21 Jumpstreet,_ a cop show about narcs in school, a launching point for Johnny Depp.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 8, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I agree, yet _SG-1_ managed to entertain me than _Enterprise's_ first 3 seasons. It does not make me feel like I have wasted one hour a week. For some reasons, I can stomach Colonel O'Neill's dry humor.



I agree with this as well.  As much as I refuse to accept that _SG-1_ "raised the bar for sci-fi"...it's still better than _Enterprise_.  A lot better.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 8, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Looks like the artist from Real Life didn't like it either.
> 
> http://www.reallifecomics.com/20050204_1374.png




    

That was funny!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> And, even if I tape it, I don't go back and watch the tapes. I'm lazy that way. And have forgotten to tape it since season 1 ended.



And whose fault is that? Hmm?   

Consider yourself lucky. If you didn't like _VOY,_ there is no way you're going to like another _Trek_ show with Brannon Braga and Rick Berman as executive producers, i.e., _Enterprise._


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 8, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I don't watch a lot of tv.
> 
> I never watched this.
> 
> It doesn't make me sad or happy, but does give me some hope that when the female lead companies that there's no writing involved, that perhaps the next Trek series won't blatantly try to rely on sex to sell.




Um. That was one of the key selling points of the original series. LOTS of scantily-clad women running around, chasing Kirk and trying to get into bed with him. And some succeeding.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 8, 2005)

Urklore said:
			
		

> If they do another series, they should do one focused around a different race. A series based on the Klingon race would rock as ratings show that everytime an ep involves Klingons it gets high ratings. Just my 3 cents of course.




Just as long as they don't make Klingons suck. All the Klingon related Trek shows I've seen have usually rocked! 

I still like it from DS9's "Trials and Tribbilations" where Odo asks Worf abt the Classic Trek Klingons....

Worf: ::growls:: We. Don't. Talk. About. It.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 8, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And whose fault is that? Hmm?
> 
> Consider yourself lucky. If you didn't like _VOY,_ there is no way you're going to like another _Trek_ show with Brannon Braga and Rick Berman as executive producers, i.e., _Enterprise._




Heck. I've got all sorts of TNG and DS9 tapes stacked up. I've downloaded some Enterprise and DS9 off the 'net to watch on the comp. One day, burn those to disk where, hopefully, be easier to access than the tapes. I think I have Voyager taped as well along with the DS9. And it's hard to find the right ep as my bf at the time didn't label the titles, just the dates he'd taped them. Which is a pain......


----------



## Orius (Feb 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Re Stargate SG-1; it's primarily a comedy show that spends most of its time satirising itself and the genre in general.  And unlike Hercules & Xena it does this consistently well.  I love it.  OTOH SG: Atlantis lacks the humour and my wife & I gave up on it after 1 ep.




Stargate's a comedy?   That's a fresh take on the show.  I've never really seen the show as a comedy myself.  The movie the show was based wasn't a comedy either.  The thing is I always found the idea of aliens building the pyramids to be ludicrous myself, but Stargate took that basic premise and made a good movie and tv series out of it.  And it's fun to see the occasional lighthearted episode that pokes fun at Sci-Fi in general.

Hercules was meant from the beginning to be campy and silly.  Ever see the second Herc movie, "Hercules and the Lost City"?  That is so cheesy, with fake rubber and computer generated monsters and lame dialogue.  But it was written to be cheesy in the first place which make it kind of fun to watch.  And Herc was versitle enough to be able to to the occaisional serious episode.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I still like it from DS9's "Trials and Tribbilations" where Odo asks Worf abt the Classic Trek Klingons....
> 
> Worf: ::growls:: We. Don't. Talk. About. It.



Unfortunately, there will be an episode that will reveal and answer the question, "Why did _TOS_ Klingons have smooth head but the rest have ridgeheads?"

As a Fan of All Things Klingon, I am not happy about this exposé.   

I mean, why answer that mystery question? Keep it a mystery. I like my Klingons tall, dark, and mysterious. Not a frakkin' open book!


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> Stargate's a comedy?   That's a fresh take on the show.




I remember a recent episode:

(Unexpected bit of backstory revealed)

O'Neil (blinks):
"Did I miss an episode?"


----------



## jester47 (Feb 8, 2005)

There is only one true Star Trek, all others are pale comparisons to The Original Series.  

Aaron 
"The Star Trek Diaglo"


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 9, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> There is only one true Star Trek, all others are pale comparisons to The Original Series.



And there is only one true _Star Trek_ episode, "Spock's Brain."


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 9, 2005)

Here's where I stand on the sci-fi thing:

Farscape is the measure by which I guage all sci-fi anymore. On a scale of 1-10, Star Wars is a 10 and Farscape is an 11. Other sci-fi? It varies wildly. 

Babylon 5... never been able to watch an entire episode without falling asleep, so I couldn't justly rate it. Andromeda... mega-crap. I wouldn't call it Hercules in space, because that would be an insult to Hurcules.

DS9 and VOY are what I consider low-points in the Star Trek saga. Both were generally more entertaining than whatever else was on TV at the time, simply because of genre, but I could never get into either one. They were just boring.

TOS and TGN were the good Trek series, if you hit a good episode, which was most of the time with TOS and about half the time with TGN.

Enterprise? It's the only Trek series since TOS where I've been able to stomach most of the episodes. I LIKED Enterprise. Still do. Good characters (Archer & Phlox somewhat, but especially Trip & T'Pol) make the show, and I'll be sorely disappointed if the Save Enterprise campaign fails as badly as the Save Farscape campaign did (which is likely, so I suppose I have sore disappointment to look forward to). On the plus side, everything I've heard about the upcoming episodes sounds very, very good and once the show gets past the admittedly marginal Andorian/Tellerite/Romulan arc, it's shaping up to be some of the best trek since TNG. The "Why Klingons have flat foreheads" arc, the mirror-universe 2-parter, and the whole convoluted Trip/T'Pol bond & baby thing prove that at least the show will go out on a high note and I won't be the only one sorry to see it go.

Stargate... it's good stuff. Always entertaining, and that's what counts, not realism (it's sci-FI, for cryin' out loud). You watch the show because O'Neill is funny, T'ealc and Dr. Jackson are sometimes funny, because Maj. Sheppard is a blatant O'Neill wannabe, and Dr. McKay is actually funnier.


----------



## myrdden (Feb 9, 2005)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> The "Why Klingons have flat foreheads" arc, the mirror-universe 2-parter, and the whole convoluted Trip/T'Pol bond & baby thing prove that at least the show will go out on a high note and I won't be the only one sorry to see it go.




And this is why I prefer not to know what's coming ahead.  None of those story lines really make me go "Yippee" and quite frankly a mirror-univers story line is far too much a blatant rip-off from TOS IMO.  Regardless of how it may turn out.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Feb 9, 2005)

I rather like Stargate.  It does occur to me that RDA shouldn't be playing the special forces guy.  With his sarcastic attitude, I'd think he should have been cast in some sort of civilian role -- perhaps a McKay type.  

I liked Enterprise when it was new, then I moved where I couldn't get UPN and missed the last three seasons.  One thing I did observe was that the pilot episode seemed to have a really cool '50s Sci-Fi vibe in places that reminded me of the original pilot to ST:TOS.  I was sad to see them drift away from that in future episodes.  I liked the characters but I didn't care much for the temporal cold war plot.  I wish they had found different things to do with the crew.  

Still, I considered it to be middle of the road Sci-Fi.  It's not like it's Buck Rogers or something like that.


----------



## David Howery (Feb 9, 2005)

I keep thinking just how neat Enterprise would have been if the current writers had been there from the very beginning, tying in this series with the others and ignoring the whole TCW thing.  Even if UPN had still only contracted for 4 seasons, we'd have had 4 good seasons instead of 3 bad ones and 1 good one.  There would have been time for all the story arcs presented this year, plus the upcoming Romulan war, etc....


----------



## Henry (Feb 9, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And there is only one true _Star Trek_ episode, "Spock's Brain."




_*Waves hand in front of Ranger REG's face like a jedi master*_

*"There was no season 3."*

_*departs*_


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 9, 2005)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> Here's where I stand on the sci-fi thing:
> 
> DS9 and VOY are what I consider low-points in the Star Trek saga. Both were generally more entertaining than whatever else was on TV at the time, simply because of genre, but I could never get into either one. They were just boring.



How dare you clump _DS9_ with _VOY_?!?!!!

_VOY_ is mega-crap!!! _DS9_ excels over that!!! _DS9_ has better story and character development than most of the contemporary _Trek_ series I've seen, and they do that mostly on deep space station.

You poor, misguided alcoholic beverage.




			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> Enterprise? It's the only Trek series since TOS where I've been able to stomach most of the episodes. I LIKED Enterprise. Still do. Good characters (Archer & Phlox somewhat, but especially Trip & T'Pol) make the show, and I'll be sorely disappointed if the Save Enterprise campaign fails as badly as the Save Farscape campaign did (which is likely, so I suppose I have sore disappointment to look forward to). On the plus side, everything I've heard about the upcoming episodes sounds very, very good and once the show gets past the admittedly marginal Andorian/Tellerite/Romulan arc, it's shaping up to be some of the best trek since TNG. The "Why Klingons have flat foreheads" arc, the mirror-universe 2-parter, and the whole convoluted Trip/T'Pol bond & baby thing prove that at least the show will go out on a high note and I won't be the only one sorry to see it go.



With the exception of this fourth season, how can you actually like _Enterprise_ when it is run by the same two executive producers of _VOY_????   

For the first three seasons of _Enterprise,_ I see the same repeated ... Braga's trick ... I have seen on _VOY._ It's nowhere near _TOS,_ and this is supposed to be a prequel. The only bright light is the appearance of Andorians, but that is not often used. The recent story arcs had more episodes about the Andorians in one season than the past three seasons combined.

I'm sorry for the cast. I like them, despite critics blasting Bakula's performance. But honestly, no matter how good the cast are, it's the story that matter. And Braga doesn't have that creative juice anymore.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 9, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> _*Waves hand in front of Ranger REG's face like a jedi master*_
> 
> *"There was no season 3."*
> 
> _*departs*_



* dispels and dismisses *

Yes, there is. "The Enterprise Incident" (Kirk & Co. stole a Romulan Cloaking Device), "The Tholian Web" (first appearance of the Tholian), and "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (a sci-fi spin on racism issue) are among the best episodes of Season 3.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 10, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> How dare you clump _DS9_ with _VOY_?!?!!!
> 
> _VOY_ is mega-crap!!! _DS9_ excels over that!!! _DS9_ has better story and character development than most of the contemporary _Trek_ series I've seen, and they do that mostly on deep space station.
> 
> You poor, misguided alcoholic beverage.



It only goes to show that tastes vary.  DS9, as a whole, is my favorite Star Trek of them all.  It combines all the best elements of TOS and TNG, as well as providing season- and series-long story arcs that were more prominent and well-developed than anything we'd seen before.  It touched on religion and politics and moral ambiguity, all the while not losing what it means to be Star Trek.

Garak, Quark, Gul Ducat, Kai Wyn...  There was so much richness to even the secondary characters on DS9.

Absolutely fantastic.

But as I said, obviously opinions vary.


----------



## Orius (Feb 10, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> * dispels and dismisses *
> 
> Yes, there is. "The Enterprise Incident" (Kirk & Co. stole a Romulan Cloaking Device), "The Tholian Web" (first appearance of the Tholian), and "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (a sci-fi spin on racism issue) are among the best episodes of Season 3.




And yet Season 3 also gave us such turds as "Spock's Brain" (dumb girl puts on helmet, becomes super smart and steals Spock's brain to run the computer running the planet), "And the Children Shall Lead" (a ghost kills the parents of a bunch of kids, and then uses those kids to try to take over the Enterprise), and "The Way to Eden" (space hippies hijack the Enterprise and take it to a "paradise" planet loaded with acidic and poisonous vegetation)

And while "The Tholian Web" was kind of cool in it's own way, "Day of the Dove" (entity forces Enterprise crew and Klingons to fight because it feeds on hatred and violence) is a much cooler episode.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 10, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> And yet Season 3 also gave us such turds as "Spock's Brain" (dumb girl puts on helmet, becomes super smart and steals Spock's brain to run the computer running the planet),...



Yes, I've already mentioned that episode on Post #119.


----------



## Silver Moon (Feb 11, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Garak, Gul Ducat, Kai Wyn...  There was so much richness to even the secondary characters on DS9.



That's an understatement.   No other Trek even came close.  TNG had some very memorable non-regulars but very few were recurring.  I loved that fact that DS9 even managed to pull off an excellent 7th Season episode where none of the three main characters (Rom, Nog and Vic Fontaine) were even named in the title credits.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 11, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there will be an episode that will reveal and answer the question, "Why did _TOS_ Klingons have smooth head but the rest have ridgeheads?"
> 
> As a Fan of All Things Klingon, I am not happy about this exposé.
> 
> I mean, why answer that mystery question? Keep it a mystery. I like my Klingons tall, dark, and mysterious. Not a frakkin' open book!




And they'll totally *bleep* it up like Lucas did explaining the Force.  

I think I'd read somewhere that it was the standard Klingon race mating with humans and the TOS Klingons were the "half-breeds".... They weren't even fully Klingon to start with. Just so they can associate with humans easier since they fairly resemble them, but swarthier. Don't recall where I read that tho..... it's been years since then.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 11, 2005)

*Rumor Mill Regarding SCI-FI And Enterprise*

This is being circulated around various yahoogroups, including a couple of Klingon-related ones:

There is news spreading around pretty fast today that the SCI-FI
CHANNEL is interested in picking up ST: Enterprise. But they want to
see the fan base (as if they don't know where we are).
Write to:

Ms. Bonnie Hammer
President & General Manager
Sci-Fi Channel
1230 Avenue of The Americas
New York, NY  10020

If there is even the slightest shred of this being a possibility, and
not just hopeful conjecture....write those letters!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 11, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> And this is why I prefer not to know what's coming ahead.  None of those story lines really make me go "Yippee" and quite frankly a mirror-univers story line is far too much a blatant rip-off from TOS IMO.  Regardless of how it may turn out.




Nothing can top "Mirror, Mirror" for mirror universe stories. Not even the DS9 episode(s), even though they come real close. There was also a Trek novel that took place in that mirror universe. Some years after Kirk left to come back from ours', he gets to go back with the Crew to see what happens through some sort of "string" technology/physics that was totally convoluted in its explanation. Funny, I can remember that but not the book title nor the author......  :\


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> This is being circulated around various yahoogroups, including a couple of Klingon-related ones:
> 
> There is news spreading around pretty fast today that the SCI-FI
> CHANNEL is interested in picking up ST: Enterprise. But they want to
> ...



Two conditions...

1. That SCI-FI allow _Enterprise_ airtime to be sold in the syndication market. I don't have cable. But putting _Enterprise_ in the syndication market would allow my local TV stations to bid for vacant timeslot in their programming schedule. If I can watch _Andromeda_ and one-season-behind _SG-1_ late saturday night without cable, then I would be cool.

2. Terminate contract of employees Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Install Manny Coto as the show's new executive producer.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> If there is even the slightest shred of this being a possibility, and
> not just hopeful conjecture....write those letters!



I regret to say I'm completely against this.  The longer _Enterprise_ lives, in any form, the longer it will take for us to get a new Trek series.  Seeing the "wonders" the Sci-Fi Channel has worked with _Andromeda_, I'd prefer _Enterprise_ die now and allow a fresh Trek to be born, not cling to life as some hideous Sci-Fi Channel abomination, preventing the resurrection of decent Trek so long as it continues to exist.


----------



## Waylander (Feb 11, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I regret to say I'm completely against this.  The longer _Enterprise_ lives, in any form, the longer it will take for us to get a new Trek series.  Seeing the "wonders" the Sci-Fi Channel has worked with _Andromeda_, I'd prefer _Enterprise_ die now and allow a fresh Trek to be born, not cling to life as some hideous Sci-Fi Channel abomination, preventing the resurrection of decent Trek so long as it continues to exist.




I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> There is news spreading around pretty fast today that the SCI-FI
> CHANNEL is interested in picking up ST: Enterprise. But they want to
> see the fan base (as if they don't know where we are).




If and only if Manny Coto is allowed to continue his work unhindered.  I don't care if B&B still get the Executive Producer credits, so long as we get more of what we've been having this season.


----------



## myrdden (Feb 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Nothing can top "Mirror, Mirror" for mirror universe stories. Not even the DS9 episode(s), even though they come real close.




I agree even though I more or less quite enjoyed the DS9 events in the mirror-verse.

There was a TNG novel that had a mirro-verse storyline as well but I can't remember the title, the author or the plot.  I do remember that I thought it was not too bad a read.  How's that for selective memory?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 11, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If and only if Manny Coto is allowed to continue his work unhindered.  I don't care if B&B still get the Executive Producer credits, so long as we get more of what we've been having this season.



Nope. B&B will have to go. No compromise.

We'll let Manny Coto stay. He has to. He's the only beacon for _Enterprise._


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 11, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> There was a TNG novel that had a mirro-verse storyline as well but I can't remember the title, the author or the plot.  I do remember that I thought it was not too bad a read.  How's that for selective memory?




I think I read it as well. I remember the author was Diane Duane, I vaguely remember the plot (not enough to write about). Can't remember the name. I'm going home in two weeks for study week. If I remember, I'll check it then.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 11, 2005)

Sorry to be the party pooper, as of now, Paramount has no interest in shopping around Star Trek, to anyone.

In a previous article, which I did not post in the news, Berman has already stated, that Star Trek is too expensive a franchise to produce.

But, between now and then...if the fans can sway that 'final' decision...I am all for it. But Trek does need a break...as much I againt that notion...the damage done by Berman and Bragga...will take time to heal and repair.

So for now, I will enjoy of what...is left...

*Playing Paul Young...Thats my home*


----------



## Villano (Feb 11, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I regret to say I'm completely against this.  The longer _Enterprise_ lives, in any form, the longer it will take for us to get a new Trek series.  Seeing the "wonders" the Sci-Fi Channel has worked with _Andromeda_, I'd prefer _Enterprise_ die now and allow a fresh Trek to be born, not cling to life as some hideous Sci-Fi Channel abomination, preventing the resurrection of decent Trek so long as it continues to exist.




I haven't watched any of the new Andromeda, but I can't imagine them being worse than the episodes before.  And don't forget Sci-Fi is also doing Battlestar: Galactica, which is n't a bad series at all.  

Speaking as someone who doesn't get UPN, I hope Sci-Fi does pick it up just so I can see the damn thing.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I hope Sci-Fi does pick it up just so I can see the damn thing.



You really don't.  You may think you do, but you don't.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 12, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I haven't watched any of the new Andromeda, but I can't imagine them being worse than the episodes before.



They're stuck in a pocket universe created by Trance. They're not going anywhere until they find a way to restore full power to Andromeda and find that one slipstream route to get out of it. IOW, they're grounded to that one system.




			
				Villano said:
			
		

> And don't forget Sci-Fi is also doing Battlestar: Galactica, which is n't a bad series at all.



As long as those SCI-FI don't meddle like they did to the _B5_ spinoffs (_Crusade_ and _The Rangers_).

Most recently, they aired an adaptaion of _Earthsea_ that the book's author didn't approve and publicly expressed her dislike.

We have long memory of SCI-FI.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As long as those SCI-FI don't meddle like they did to the _B5_ spinoffs (_Crusade_ and _The Rangers_).
> 
> Most recently, they aired an adaptaion of _Earthsea_ that the book's author didn't approve and publicly expressed her dislike.
> 
> We have long memory of SCI-FI.



Not that long, apparently. The ones who meddled with Crusade were TNT, not Sci-Fi. Not sure if Rangers were meddled with at all, or if it was just the combination of not being quite up to snuff along with the pilot airing at the same time as some sports event that ate up huge numbers of viewers.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nope. B&B will have to go. No compromise.




I will compromise, thank you.  Punishing B&B is not on my agenda.  Getting good Star Trek is.  They can get the credit, or be called Grand High Poobah for all I care, just so long as Coto (or JMS) is doing the work.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 12, 2005)

The STNG Mirror Universe novel was "Dark Mirror", which I bought & enjoyed a lot - it had evil alternates of all the regulars, Troi was the EEEVIL-est alternate of them all, AIR, but they were all nice.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 12, 2005)

I thought Dark Mirror was far better than the DS9 version of the Mirror Universe, btw.

Re Galactica, maybe UK's Sky (owned by News Corp) had something to do w it being so cool?  Maybe they just trusted Moore & co.  Sky are the primary bankrollers of Galactica AFAIK, hence it being shown on Sky One before broadcast in other lesser countries...


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 12, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I will compromise, thank you.  Punishing B&B is not on my agenda.  Getting good Star Trek is.



Then you defeat your own purpose. In order to get good _Star Trek,_ you need to remove B&B. They are the cancer. Just ignoring them while they stay is not going to do any good. Their position still put them in charge of Manny Coto. And if they feel like writing for the series finale of _Enterprise_ they will do so over Manny's head, as their job position would allow them to.

No compromise. The malignant cancer have stayed too long. They must be removed.


----------



## Orius (Feb 13, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Sorry to be the party pooper, as of now, Paramount has no interest in shopping around Star Trek, to anyone.




I'd have to say that's probably far more likely that Trek being sold off.  Viacom owns Trek, and there's money to be made in it, they just don't feel like trying to make any money off it right now.  So while they don't have any use for it, they don't want anyone else getting their hands on it and turning it around again.  Maybe if Moonves or whoever the morons are at the top (and I mean over even B&B's heads here) actually put the show in syndication or some other venue where it could find an audience instead of killing it on a third rate network where it was getting butchered by the competion in ratings, maybe things might have been different.

Certainly WB's decision to air Smallville opposite Enterprise helped to kill ratings as both shows draw from a similar fan base.  Then moving Enterprise to Friday was a really hare-brained move unless they wanted to kill the show (a distinct possibility), since Sci-Fi already had strong genre programming on Fri which also helped dilute the fan base.  This sort of executive stupidity, that is airing 4 or 5 nights at least of crap and putting all the interesting stuff opposite each other is one rason I do'nt bother watching TV anymore.  And know, I'm not going to get a TiVo, too expensive with my budget, and I don't have cable or strong enough TV viewing habits to justify the purchase either.



> In a previous article, which I did not post in the news, Berman has already stated, that Star Trek is too expensive a franchise to produce.




That sounds like crap to me.  Star Trek can be a money maker and has proven it often enough in the past.  I think it hasn't been making money recently because Viacom is run by morons:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-07-04&res=l



> But, between now and then...if the fans can sway that 'final' decision...I am all for it. But Trek does need a break...as much I againt that notion...the damage done by Berman and Bragga...will take time to heal and repair.




A strong fan response *might* sway their decision.  But if this thread reflects the views of Trek fans as a whole I doubt it somewhat.  Some fans want a rest, others say that Coto and the Stevens are proof that with good writing and production, Trek can still keep going strong.  Some fans want to see the Romulan Wars and the early days of the Federation.  Some want something set in Kirk's time.  Others want to leave the past behind, and go back to where DS9 left off (not really counting Voyager, since that was somewhat self-contained).  There certainly doesn't seem to be any agreement as to what direction to take.  And then you get the old curmudgeons who hate everything new and will just bitch about how much the new stuff sucks and how great TOS was.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 13, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> That sounds like crap to me.  Star Trek can be a money maker and has proven it often enough in the past.



Perhaps, but what they did this season to persuade UPN to order more episodes is cut the price in half. By doing so, they hope to compensate the loss of money by relying on merchandise sale.

If they shop around, most network would prefer to pay what UPN is currently paying.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 13, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then you defeat your own purpose. In order to get good _Star Trek,_ you need to remove B&B.




No, we don't.  Current episodes of _Enterprise_ stand as proof.  



> They are the cancer. Just ignoring them while they stay is not going to do any good.  Their position still put them in charge of Manny Coto. And if they feel like writing for the series finale of _Enterprise_ they will do so over Manny's head, as their job position would allow them to.




And who gives a gosh darn which of them writes the finale?  The finale is the end, and has no further impact of the health or life of the show or the franchise.

And ignoring them while they stay has brought about marked improvement this season.  I'm sorry, but the evidence before my eyes does not match your hard-line stance.  B&B can have their positions and still have decent programming come out of it.  

You keep talking about them like a cancer thatmust be removed.  To continue using your medical analogy - what you forget is that surgery has risks.  Ousting B&B would likely entail a corporate fight that would damage the patient.  It could be lethal, as the person(s) who come out on top in the end may be no better than B&B.  If the patient is improving without surgery, you watch a while and wait and see if perhaps surgery isn't necessary at all.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 13, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You keep talking about them like a cancer thatmust be removed.  To continue using your medical analogy - what you forget is that surgery has risks.  Ousting B&B would likely entail a corporate fight that would damage the patient.  It could be lethal, as the person(s) who come out on top in the end may be no better than B&B.  If the patient is improving without surgery, you watch a while and wait and see if perhaps surgery isn't necessary at all.




Which is why you treat it with meds. So the tumour becomes benign: you know it's there, but you really don't care (unless you have to look at it, but most people can shut their eyes for the last credit at the beginning).


----------



## myrdden (Feb 13, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The STNG Mirror Universe novel was "Dark Mirror", which I bought & enjoyed a lot - it had evil alternates of all the regulars, Troi was the EEEVIL-est alternate of them all, AIR, but they were all nice.




Yeah!  That's it!  Thanks for jogging the memory.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 14, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> I agree even though I more or less quite enjoyed the DS9 events in the mirror-verse.
> 
> There was a TNG novel that had a mirro-verse storyline as well but I can't remember the title, the author or the plot.  I do remember that I thought it was not too bad a read.  How's that for selective memory?




Sounds like you're copying my selective memory on that same tome!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 14, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Two conditions...
> 
> 1. That SCI-FI allow _Enterprise_ airtime to be sold in the syndication market. I don't have cable. But putting _Enterprise_ in the syndication market would allow my local TV stations to bid for vacant timeslot in their programming schedule. If I can watch _Andromeda_ and one-season-behind _SG-1_ late saturday night without cable, then I would be cool.
> 
> 2. Terminate contract of employees Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Install Manny Coto as the show's new executive producer.




1. If I recall, _Enterprise_ does have enough episodes to sell it to syndication, should they choose to do so.

2. Can't agree more! Berman and Braga need to go!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 14, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I think I read it as well. I remember the author was Diane Duane, I vaguely remember the plot (not enough to write about). Can't remember the name. I'm going home in two weeks for study week. If I remember, I'll check it then.




Here, we call that "Spring Break"....   And I doubt much "studying" goes on........


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 14, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> 1. If I recall, _Enterprise_ does have enough episodes to sell it to syndication, should they choose to do so.



Yeah, but who would want to watch the first three season's worth all over again, besides the doofs?

I want fresh Manny Coto-produced _Enterprise_ episodes.




			
				Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> 2. Can't agree more! Berman and Braga need to go!



They need to go. No compromise.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 14, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> No, we don't.  Current episodes of _Enterprise_ stand as proof.



Proof of what? They have declared they're writing the series finale episodes.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And who gives a gosh darn which of them writes the finale?  The finale is the end, and has no further impact of the health or life of the show or the franchise.



Well, I for one would like it to be a good sendoff. So kill me for liking the show this late in the run. I also hope that since impending cancellation news that people did not already tuned off of this season's run. They should at least watch Manny Coto's works.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And ignoring them while they stay has brought about marked improvement this season.  I'm sorry, but the evidence before my eyes does not match your hard-line stance.  B&B can have their positions and still have decent programming come out of it.



Then why are we paying them for, if they are ignored? Berman say it is too expensive to run more episode. Perhaps if we terminate his payroll, his future paycheck would serve the _Trek_ franchise better.




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> You keep talking about them like a cancer thatmust be removed.  To continue using your medical analogy - what you forget is that surgery has risks.  Ousting B&B would likely entail a corporate fight that would damage the patient.  It could be lethal, as the person(s) who come out on top in the end may be no better than B&B.  If the patient is improving without surgery, you watch a while and wait and see if perhaps surgery isn't necessary at all.



So, the risk of having the surgery to remove said cancer is just as high as letting the cancer fester?

If I'm the patient -- analogy-wise -- I take my chance with the surgery. IOW, I would rather dictate my life rather than let the cancer dictate me. Boo ya!


----------



## Umbran (Feb 14, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Proof of what? They have declared they're writing the series finale episodes.




You said that in order to get good Star Trek, you need to get rid of B&B.  There have been good episodes under Manny Coto that have been good.  Ergo, your assertion is incorrect.  I have no idea why you think the finale has anything to do with it.



> Then why are we paying them for, if they are ignored? Berman say it is too expensive to run more episode. Perhaps if we terminate his payroll, his future paycheck would serve the _Trek_ franchise better.




Do you know how much he's geting paid?  I don't. At $2 million per episode, I don't expect his salary is all that large a percentage of the total costs.



> So, the risk of having the surgery to remove said cancer is just as high as letting the cancer fester?




No.  If you're going to use the medical analogy, you're stuck with the fact that medicine is rarely digital.  There's more than two options available.  As mojo1701 points out, there's alternative treatments that are less invasive and risky.  

Mind you, at this point it seems that no "treatment" is going to save anything, so it's rather moot.  As Phlox might say - the patient is dead, we are symply waiting for the neurolytic energy to dissipate.


----------



## mojo1701 (Feb 14, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Mind you, at this point it seems that no "treatment" is going to save anything, so it's rather moot.  As Phlox might say - the patient is dead, we are symply waiting for the neurolytic energy to dissipate.




I wasn't expecting that. That was nice.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 14, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Mind you, at this point it seems that no "treatment" is going to save anything, so it's rather moot.  As Phlox might say - the patient is dead, we are symply waiting for the neurolytic energy to dissipate.



I disagree. That's HMO talk, IMNSHO. There is a treatment, they just don't want to pay for the surgery.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Feb 15, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Yeah, but who would want to watch the first three season's worth all over again, besides the doofs?




Or those who want to see them and haven't seen them before. Granted, it *may* be painful..... but then anything can't be as bad as Voyager.... heck, even Gilligan's Island had better premise and better writing than VOY! I love watching Gilligan's Island!


----------



## Umbran (Feb 15, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I disagree. That's HMO talk, IMNSHO. There is a treatment, they just don't want to pay for the surgery.




From what I hear tell, no, it isn't that they don't want to pay for the surgery.  They (meaning the networks) don't want to pay to feed and house the patient at all.  They don't feel that any treatment will pull the patient into a place where he will adequately pay his rent and utility bills.

All the previous stuff being said, there's another option - let the patient die, and then ressurect it.  Most folks seem to say that we should let it die and rot in the ground a while, like a Scandanavian delicacy.  I'm not such a fan of that idea.  And neither is one other person - JMS

Take a look at <url=http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30385>this Sci Fi Wire article</a>.  If we cannot have Entreprise, we might get something else tasty.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 16, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> but then anything can't be as bad as Voyager....



Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are executive producers of both _VOY_ and _ENT._ I admitted giving them a second chance but they blew it on the first episode of _ENT._

The only thing that is making me watch _ENT_ now -- with praise -- is Manny Coto.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2005)

As for a new Trek series, I wouldn't mind seeing one set in the past, that's dedicated to exploring Trek's past.  We haven't got much of that with Enterprise.  I liked the first season, even if some of the episodes were sleepers; the crew for the most part had a great deal of enthusiasm about exploring deep space fo the first time.  And I've enjoyed this season as well, Archer and the crew have learned from their experiences, and we see Archer developing into a leader who will eventually take a major role in founding the Federation (which is something that's been constantly hinted at this season).  

OTOH, I'd like to see them return to the future.  The aftermath of the Dominion War and the events of Nemesis have shaken up the politics of the Alpha Quadrant.  I don't really count the stuff on Voyager, since that series was more or less self-contained.  The biggest downside to a prequel is that you're setting backstory in stone, and it makes things less flexible for future writers.  Another downside, though more subtle is coming up with technology that looks futuristic to us, but primitive by TOS standards.  I would say that probably wasn't an easy balance for the production designers to meet.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2005)

The bulk of _ENT_ seasons 1 through 3 are sleepers. Season 4 opened my eyes.


----------

