# More on Enterprise's "new direction" [Slight Rant, long]



## Orius (May 18, 2003)

Here's a news link that I found when I logged on to ENWorld today.  It's basically a short interview with Braga about the show's new direction:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/170503_01.shtml

Before I begin, I feel I owe an apology to Mark.  This thread has potential to devolve into more Braga bashing, and I know how much he wants to avoid that.  But after reading this, I too have come to the conclusion that Braga just doesn't get it.  This paragraph I think clinches it for me:



> "Although many fans have speculated the Romulans may come to play a big part in forthcoming seasons, Braga said Enterprise should be using fresh scenarios. "Sure, we could have made it the Romulans that attacked Earth. But haven't we seen the Romulans for the past 15 years? Do we really just want to keep seeing the Romulans? No. We've got to do new stuff."




But Enterprise is in the past, so revisiting the old stuff does make more since.  Sure maybe these Xindi might be cool and all, but if they don't grab the fans' attention, will they be jettisoned like the Suliban have seem to have been?  The Suliban supposedly were supposed to be a major threat, but we've seen them what, 5 times in about 50 episodes?  The Temporal Cold War plot  was supposed a major storyline but all we've seen is the same type of banal storylines that have been told over and over again in _Trek_.  _That's_ why the show has been slipping in ratings; people want something fresh.  And fresh doesn't mean new makeup and costumes.

I think the TCW storyline could have been good if it was _used_.  The real badguy isn't Silik, it's the dude cloaked in shadows we see ordering him around.  The mystery about him is what makes him interesting. I don't know about anyone else, but I have a suspicion that this guy is actually a human.  After all, the foulest villians are those who are supposed to be virtuous, and _Star Trek_ has been showing us unrealisticlly perfect humans for like the last 15 years.  It would be interesting if these bad guys in the TCW were actually some sort of rogue group in the Federation from around the 26-28th century or so (which seems to be where they're operating from).  The only weakness here is that the good guys are (obviously) from the 31st century Federation, and I don't see how they wouldn't know everything the bad guys are going to do.

Revisiting old races isn't a bad thing.  In fact the impression that I've gotten is that the fans like seeing how things came together to form the Federation.  A good example is this season's episode "Cease Fire".  Archer successfully manages to negotiate a peace deal between the Vulcans and Andorians.  It's a great episode because it lays a foundation for the Federation that we all know.  And both alien races -- Vulcan and Andorian -- go all the way back to TOS.  This tells me that the classic _Trek_ material can be worked with.  And it also seems to have been well recieved among _Trek_ fans, which is a good indicator that it wouldn't be a mistake to turn the show in this direction.

The same point can be made with the Romulans.  The fans know the Romulan Wars are in the very near future.  They expect to see Romulans.  But all we get is a single episode this season which I suspect was little more than a plug for "Nemesis".  What a waste.  The Romulans of all the adversaries we have are, IMO, the most interesting of all _Trek_ villains.  Why shouldn't they be used?  It makes sense, it fills in a very important part of the history of the _Trek_ universe, and they're one of the few villians that haven't been ruined by overuse. 

"Xindi" means nothing to me.  As good as this storyline could be, there's absolutely no impact from this Xindi attack in all other _Trek_ series.  That makes it hard for me to suspend disbelief.  An attack this devastating would be remembered into the 23rd and 24th centuries; after all both centuries remember WWIII all to clearly.  If it were Romulans, it would make more sense in the long run.

   Braga however, and Berman to some extent as well, I think are far more concerned about getting ratings up than continuity and internal logic.  Well, a new badass race isn't going to guarantee it, and they risk alienating the core fan base which is far more damaging in the long run.  The fans have their own preconceptions about what _Trek_ is and isn't, and continuity of the backstory is an important part of those preconceptions.  Weekly Neilsens might be important to the show but with _Trek_, the fans are far more imortant.  It's the fans that keep the franchise alive.  _Star Trek_ would have died, permanently, in 1967 if it weren't for the fans.  The power of Star Trek fandom is not to be underestimated: it got the prototype for the space shuttle named Enterprise.  But I see these days the fans grumbling ever louder about _Trek_ and what Berman/Braga are doing to it.  I see fans turning their back on _Trek_ because they don't like what it's become.  That I think is the greatest threat to _Trek's_ future, far more than bad ratings ever will be.


----------



## Mark (May 18, 2003)

Orius said:
			
		

> *Before I begin, I feel I owe an apology to Mark. *




Thanks. 

I think he's right about the Romulans, though.  They'd be a very unsatisfying villain for _Enterprise_ to exploit.  We, as an audience, already know enough about them that they'd hold little surprise for us and the episodes would have to be sure that the characters find out even less (if we are to believe that the TOS and early TNG episodes are still true).  We're better off if they are only mentioned in later, seventh season episodes as the new threat that needs to be handled as the curtain closes on the series. (EDIT - The Romulans and Romulan War stories would make for some great movies about eight years from now after we've not seen them for a half a decade or so, IMO.  Big space battles with tons of starships oughta be quite impressive with the level of film/technology we'll have by then if special effects keep developing at the rate they are now!  )

I think they still will have the ability to drag out the TCW sparringly and a few times per season.  I'd rather it not be the primary focus of the series.  Also, the changes that are made by TCW episodes in the timeline have the ability to explain why the new Xindi are never heard of after the time of _Enterprise_, I suppose.

I like how they have been weaving the stories to refer to things that have happned early in the series thus far.  I hope they continue to do this and maybe raise the stakes for how important such references are.

(Question: When are the Eugenic Wars supposed to take place relative to the _Enterprise_ Timeline?)

Regarding ratings, I'm all for anything they can do to draw in enough people so they can stay on the air.  I do not want the final Trek series to end before a full run or to be the death knell for the franchise, be it television, movies, etc.

I think they need to get a few DS9 movies out to satisfy the cravings of the canonites and hard-core, I-hate-anything-after-DS9 fans...


----------



## Eternalknight (May 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: More on Enterprise's "new direction" [Slight Rant, long]*



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> (Question: When are the Eugenic Wars supposed to take place relative to the Enterprise Timeline?)
> 
> *




1993 was when they reached their peak.


----------



## drothgery (May 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: More on Enterprise's "new direction" [Slight Rant, long]*



			
				Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *1993 was when they reached their peak. *




The dates of Eugenics Wars and WWIII have been pretty badly mungled by Trek writers, because the original 1990s timeframe makes no sense now. When I was much younger, and a much bigger Trek fan, I started on a fanfic which explained the 'official history' of the Trek universe from about 1980 - 2100 was bogus.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 18, 2003)

I still do not know why they don't use the klingons!  Raiders, slavers, savages, third world leaders, nazis in space, noble warriors, they are made to order but they do nothing with them.   Romulans should remain in the shadows, hinted at but show why Klingons were so hated in ST:OS.


----------



## Mark (May 18, 2003)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> *I still do not know why they don't use the klingons!  Raiders, slavers, savages, third world leaders, nazis in space, noble warriors, they are made to order but they do nothing with them.   Romulans should remain in the shadows, hinted at but show why Klingons were so hated in ST:OS. *




To the contrary, I think the Klingons have cropped up in their fair share of episodes.  I'd be sick of _Enterprise_ if they did show after show where they fell back on Klingons as the antagonist.  I think we'll see plenty of them with a price on Archer's head.  Have the Suliban even been used as much as the Klingons?

Besides, same problem with the Klingons as the Romulans.  We know how their story ends.  I don't recall how many races finally make up the Federation but if they are going to use a race that ultimately becomes our ally as a main focus for the series, please let it be one of which we know very little.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 19, 2003)

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think it's anything intrinsic to Enterprise itself that has caused the poor ratings. I think it's simply viewer fatigue - 40 years of Star Trek have simply worn out the franchise's welcome. Maybe the advent of Star Wars, especially the past few years with the new films, helped sap some of Trek's strength. Two big scifi franchises may have caused market saturation for scifi.

Anyway, regardless of the cause, Enterprise itself is actually a good show. I've grown to like the characters, and find their stories interesting. The recent episode showing Archer and Trip's past, the guy who almost became Enterprise's skipper, and the struggle to get the Warp program on track, was just plain good character-driven stuff. But it may have been too subdued for today's TV climate. I don't know.

What could they do to ramp up the ratings? I don't know if anything will work right now. I was glad to hear Enterprise was renewed. With luck, it'll last five years, which is always good for syndication. We can always watch at our leisure once it all hits DVD, and not have to worry about ratings.


----------



## mattcolville (May 19, 2003)

I have enjoyed many episodes of Enterprise. I think with one simple change, it could be one of the best shows on TV.

Make it half an hour.

Seriously, when I compare it to The West Wing...so much stuff happens in 1 hour of the West Wing, it makes Enterprise look like..a...thing that takes an hour to tell half an hour worth of story.


----------



## Orius (May 19, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I think he's right about the Romulans, though.  They'd be a very unsatisfying villain for Enterprise to exploit.  We, as an audience, already know enough about them that they'd hold little surprise for us and the episodes would have to be sure that the characters find out even less (if we are to believe that the TOS and early TNG episodes are still true).  We're better off if they are only mentioned in later, seventh season episodes as the new threat that needs to be handled as the curtain closes on the series. *




We clearly disagree here.  I like the Romulans as villains, they're a lot more interesting that the Klingon and Borg ever were.  Even in the last few seasons of DS9 they were interesting with the Dominion War plotline.  Of course, there is the possibility they could use the Romulan Wars to spin off yet another series, assuming Trek fatigue doesn't kill the show by then (and I hope it doesn't).



> *
> (Question: When are the Eugenic Wars supposed to take place relative to the Enterprise Timeline?)
> *




Already happened.  The Eugenics Wars took place in the early 1990s, and were confined to Earth.

Of course, in real world history the closest we ever got in the '90's was bioengineered (and quite controversial) crops.  We're a bit behind, since we don't have sleeper ships yet either.  (Khan fled in 1996 or something I think).  



> *
> Regarding ratings, I'm all for anything they can do to draw in enough people so they can stay on the air.  I do not want the final Trek series to end before a full run or to be the death knell for the franchise, be it television, movies, etc.
> *




Oh, I agree.  But like I said this expanse storyline may not necessarily do it anyway.  A lot of times when shows radically retool like this, they tend to lose a part of the audience who prefered the way the show was and gets disillusioned with the new storyline.  I've seen that happen before with sci-fi shows that were struggling on networks (anyone remember SeaQuest?).

The best thing for Star Trek is for UPN to tank so the show can be released in syndication, if you ask me.  Network execs ALWAYS screw things up.  The big problem is the UPN is trying to play the TV game like the Big Three networks, and it's failing, because the nature of television has fundamentally changed.  Hell, the Big Three are failing at doing things the way they used to.  So how much worse is UPN going to fail?



> *
> I think they need to get a few DS9 movies out to satisfy the cravings of the canonites and hard-core, I-hate-anything-after-DS9 fans...  *




Heh, actually, I'm not as die hard as that.   I _like_ Enterprise, I just think they're not meeting the show's true poential.  I want to see it last as much as you do.  And I want to see Archer lay the groundwork for the Federation, I want to see why the Federation races became part of the Federation and so on.
   I don't mind the TCW plotline, either, it's just that B&B have sort of pumped it up as a selling point for the show, but it doesn't seem to be that important.  Perhaps this new direction will bring it to the fore?  Though I stand by my comment about the one weakness of the idea; there's at least two sides in this war, and one side is in the other side's future.  How could they not know everything their opponents will do, have done or whatever the case may be?  I mean it's all in their past, a matter of history.


----------



## Orius (May 19, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To the contrary, I think the Klingons have cropped up in their fair share of episodes.  I'd be sick of Enterprise if they did show after show where they fell back on Klingons as the antagonist.  I think we'll see plenty of them with a price on Archer's head.  Have the Suliban even been used as much as the Klingons?
> 
> Besides, same problem with the Klingons as the Romulans.  We know how their story ends.  I don't recall how many races finally make up the Federation but if they are going to use a race that ultimately becomes our ally as a main focus for the series, please let it be one of which we know very little. *




I agree here.  We know about the Klingons.  The episode where they put Archer on trial this season was pretty good, we saw Klingon society from a different angle than usual, and some clues as to why they are the way they are.  But they're already been used as much as they can be used without their presence being overbearing on the show.  I think they'll probably reappear, Klingons are one of the most well-known aspects of Star Trek.  But Klingons are definitely in more danger of overuse than the Romulans.


----------



## EarthsShadow (May 20, 2003)

I like Enterprise, I think its a cool trek show.  Not as cool as DS9, but way cooler than Voyager.  

What did you think of the Borg episode?  That was cool, and it answered why the Borg were on their way to Earth in TNG.  

I also like the new direction they are taking.  To me it makes sense, and I think this story arc they have is definately part of the TCW.  Plus, if they cancelled the show I'll be upset and I have all episdoes recoreded and I want to get the entire show recorded cuz I can.  

And no matter what, at least we all got to see T'Pal in heat.


----------



## el-remmen (May 20, 2003)

If only I had hopes that the show's "new direction" included no longer using cheap sexual innuendo or cheesecake to sell their show. . . It is just so obvious and so stupid. . . That T'Pal episode made me gag.

I think Enterprise would be a better show if they pretended like it really was the first of the Star Trek series and not worry about using old races and villians - I would love to see some fights between Starfleet and some old fashioned Romulan ships, who's captain's refuse to make visual contact - and stuff like that.

I think old time fans like me would be interested in seeing how cleverly they can introduce and develop these well-known figures - while people who are new to Star Trek would be able to learn all this stuff for the first time.


----------



## Mark (May 20, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> *If only I had hopes that the show's "new direction" included no longer using cheap sexual innuendo or cheesecake to sell their show. . . It is just so obvious and so stupid. . . That T'Pal episode made me gag.*




The Pon'fa (sp?) has been a staple of the ST franchise, and every main vulcan character has had to deal with it, since the inception of the show.  To not do it now, simply because this vulcan is female, would be a cop out.



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *I think Enterprise would be a better show if they pretended like it really was the first of the Star Trek series and not worry about using old races and villians - I would love to see some fights between Starfleet and some old fashioned Romulan ships, who's captain's refuse to make visual contact - and stuff like that.*




That seems very contradictory.



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *I think old time fans like me would be interested in seeing how cleverly they can introduce and develop these well-known figures - while people who are new to Star Trek would be able to learn all this stuff for the first time. *




How are you defining "old time fan"?


----------



## Mallus (May 20, 2003)

I'll watch the finale, and next season, but...

... I can't help feeling that taking Enterprise in a radical new direction, with a new central conflict/antagonist race is a mistake. Or worse, a capitulation by the creative team. An admission that they couldn't find anything interesting to do with the early Federation mythos and with the characters they crewed the Enterprise with.

Its a bit like watching Gidget Goes to Rome {perhaps the most underrated of the Gidget Films}, only to find half-way through they get bored and travel to some town in the Bavarian Alps. Worse, while Gidget was in Rome she hardly ever left her hotel and sat around being various shades of neurotic...

OK, so it may not be that bad... 

And I think a statement like "I don't think to see too much of the Romulans. We already know the Romulans." is a little absurd. Its like the director a fan-service anime saying "I don't think we need to see any panty-shots. We've seen enough panties."


----------



## Silver Moon (May 20, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *....taking Enterprise in a radical new direction...Its a bit like watching Gidget Goes to Rome...*



Wow!  I've followed various message threads and articles about Trek but this is the first time that a Gidget analogy has cropped up.  Think about it:  Both were successful television shows from the 1960's; both had successful movie franchises; both had cast members who went on to fame and fortune; both had fan clubs, novels and fanzines!   

So I think we've hit upon the solution to the problem.   We take old "Gidget" scripts and adapt them to Star Trek for use with the Enterprise show.    Oops, gotta go, time to take my medication...


----------



## Mark (May 20, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *And I think a statement like "I don't think to see too much of the Romulans. We already know the Romulans." is a little absurd. Its like the director a fan-service anime saying "I don't think we need to see any panty-shots. We've seen enough panties." *




Sometimes the panties need to be removed altogether... 

Are the Xindi on the list of Federation Members?  Who's on that list?  Is it complete?  Is it posible to add a member to that list, or even add something new like a villain that doesn't ever get to be a Federation member to the ST universe without some fans getting their panties in a bunch?  Hmm...  I guess sometimes the panties _do_ need to be removed altogether... 



			
				Silver Moon said:
			
		

> *So I think we've hit upon the solution to the problem.   We take old "Gidget" scripts and adapt them to Star Trek for use with the Enterprise show.    Oops, gotta go, time to take my medication... *




Gidget, gadget, whatever...


----------



## rafrost (May 23, 2003)

*When do the Romulans get warp drive?*

Ummm,

I thought the romulans didn't have warp drive in their first war with the federation.  

Seems like an awful long trip, just to cause trouble...


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> *If only I had hopes that the show's "new direction" included no longer using cheap sexual innuendo or cheesecake to sell their show. . .
> [...snip...]
> I think old time fans like me would be interested in seeing how cleverly they can introduce and develop these well-known figures - while people who are new to Star Trek would be able to learn all this stuff for the first time. *




Considering how much cheesecake was in TOS, yes, I expect old time fans would be interested in developing well known "figures".


----------



## myrdden (May 23, 2003)

*Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				rafrost said:
			
		

> *Ummm,
> 
> I thought the romulans didn't have warp drive in their first war with the federation.
> 
> Seems like an awful long trip, just to cause trouble... *




I think that's just a relic from the past.  It was a plot device used in TOS to allow for a "Submarine-type-chase" story.  It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense now - but the episode is still a classic.

If you looking for a less meta-show type explanation, I believe it was revealed in either TNG or DS9 that the Romulans used a different power source.  It was a quantum singularity as opposed to matter/anti-matter/dylithium crystal source.  One could argue that the difference in technology could cause Scotty (in TOS) to say they had no Warp power.

Myrdden


----------



## el-remmen (May 23, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The Pon'fa (sp?) has been a staple of the ST franchise, and every main vulcan character has had to deal with it, since the inception of the show.  To not do it now, simply because this vulcan is female, would be a cop out.
> *




Well, you must mean that Benson or whatever that Vulcan on Voyager's name had to deal with it, too - but I wouldn't know - since I thought Voyager was pretty horrible and hardly ever watched it.

Spock had to deal with it . .. but couldn't they have waited to see if the show lasted 7 years first 

You have to admit they use every excuse on that show to show was much T'Pal as possible and Hoshi as well.  They are pretty and all, but I don't like my intelligence being insulted.




> *
> Define old-time fan.
> *




Uh, someone who grew up watching TOS episodes on Sunday afternoons and who watched most of TNG.


Actually, over at this thread over in Nutkinland I said what Enterprise needs to make it a "real" Trek show - more flawed God-like beings, situations involving the unknown and unexplainable, magic-like technology - it needs the awe and the weirdness factor that TOS had.


----------



## Mark (May 23, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> *Well, you must mean that Benson or whatever that Vulcan on Voyager's name had to deal with it, too - but I wouldn't know - since I thought Voyager was pretty horrible and hardly ever watched it.*




Tim Russ is about 30 years younger than Robert Guillaume.  I'm always amazed how many folks claim _Voyager_ was horrible coupled with a statement of how they hardly, if ever, watched the show.  Let's stick with a discussion of things with which you are familiar so my forehead doesn't get brick impressions...



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *Spock had to deal with it . .. but couldn't they have waited to see if the show lasted 7 years first *




I assume the wink is meant to mean the cycle of the Pon Farr doesn't need to coincide with the seven seasons of the series. 

Nonetheless, there are a number of actual medical conditions that can be prematurely triggered by a virus so the plot device didn't bother me.  How a condition that compels a vulcan to mate, and in this case gets displayed in a female vulcan, could hardly be done in a way too differently from how it was handled.  And, as said before, since we've seen this in other main characters who happened to be vulcans throughout the franchise, to not do it would have been the greater of two evils, IMO.



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *You have to admit they use every excuse on that show to show was much T'Pal as possible and Hoshi as well.  They are pretty and all, but I don't like my intelligence being insulted.*




That's something that's been true of ST since day one, old timer.  You should be used to it by now.  The public standard is not being stretched by modern ST...especially compared to TOS.  But you know that. 



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *Uh, someone who grew up watching TOS episodes on Sunday afternoons and who watched most of TNG.*




Uh?



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *...what Enterprise needs to make it a "real" Trek show - more flawed God-like beings, situations involving the unknown and unexplainable, magic-like technology - it needs the awe and the weirdness factor that TOS had. *




Please copy and paste it here (or just hit the highlights) if you'd like to discuss it further.


----------



## Eternalknight (May 23, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> *
> You have to admit they use every excuse on that show to show was much T'Pal as possible and Hoshi as well.  They are pretty and all, but I don't like my intelligence being insulted.
> *




T'pol yes (even though I don't think she is shown to be sexual very often - at least a lot less than seven of nine).

But Hoshi?  How often have we had a story based on Hoshi? Even Travis gets more air time.


----------



## Ratchis (May 23, 2003)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> T'pol yes (even though I don't think she is shown to be sexual very often - at least a lot less than seven of nine).
> 
> But Hoshi?  How often have we had a story based on Hoshi? Even Travis gets more air time. *




I was just thinking at the beginning of this season when her top got caught on something as she crawled around the air ducts and when she jumped through the hatch it was ripped off. . .   

How clever!


----------



## John Crichton (May 23, 2003)

Ratchis said:
			
		

> *I was just thinking at the beginning of this season when her top got caught on something as she crawled around the air ducts and when she jumped through the hatch it was ripped off. . .
> 
> How clever!  *



It wasn't meant to be sexy, it was meant to be funny, IMO.  I laughed.  Anyone who is turned on by that needs to get out more...


----------



## el-remmen (May 23, 2003)

*Oops!*



			
				Ratchis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I was just thinking at the beginning of this season when her top got caught on something as she crawled around the air ducts and when she jumped through the hatch it was ripped off. . .
> 
> How clever!  *




This was really me, Nemmerle - my friend was logged in on my machine and I didn't notice until after I posted. . .


----------



## John Crichton (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Oops!*



			
				nemmerle said:
			
		

> *This was really me, Nemmerle - my friend was logged in on my machine and I didn't notice until after I posted. . .  *



Doh!  

Can't you just delete it in Mod God Mode?


----------



## Eternalknight (May 24, 2003)

Ratchis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I was just thinking at the beginning of this season when her top got caught on something as she crawled around the air ducts and when she jumped through the hatch it was ripped off. . .
> 
> How clever!  *




Ah fair enough, but as John said that was supposed to be funny, not sexual.  We have seen her in a sexual moment though... one of the last episodes of season one had her in bed with someone.


----------



## myrdden (May 24, 2003)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ah fair enough, but as John said that was supposed to be funny, not sexual.  We have seen her in a sexual moment though... one of the last episodes of season one had her in bed with someone. *




Was that the episode where they went to Risa?  I don't think there was anything overtly sexual about that episode or that scene.  It fit well with the atmosphere of the episode and wasn't gratuitous (at least not that I can remember).

It would appear that everyone BUT the captain is finding love in space.  No wonder Kirk got it all in TOS the balance needed to be maintained!

Myrdden


----------



## John Crichton (May 24, 2003)

myrdden said:
			
		

> *Was that the episode where they went to Risa?  I don't think there was anything overtly sexual about that episode or that scene.  It fit well with the atmosphere of the episode and wasn't gratuitous (at least not that I can remember).*



IIRC, it was the season premiere* where the crew was retaking the ship.  Hoshi had to squeeze through some tight spot, dropped through the ceiling and her uniform was caught and her top was ripped off.  She was briefly stuck covering her chest which was no big deal.  Now I like a scene like that every so often just as much as the next guy but I found it more funny than anything.

* Footnote:  I could be _completely_ wrong about the actual episode where it happened but it was a retaking of the ship ep.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 24, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> ** Footnote:  I could be completely wrong about the actual episode where it happened but it was a retaking of the ship ep. *




No, that's right. It was _Shockwave, Part II_.


----------



## el-remmen (May 24, 2003)

The episide on Risa was fine for me - because they developed her character and her brief relationship with her lover - humanizing a character and allowing the audience ot get to know her better - using a romantic rendevouz as the means to do this . . .  Sex definitely has a long tradiiton in Star Trek - gratuitous  and ass shots however are annoying (for example always making sure they show T'Pol in Decon)


----------



## John Crichton (May 24, 2003)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> *No, that's right. It was Shockwave, Part II. *



Ah, cool.  My memory is better than I thought.


----------



## Orius (May 25, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> * I'm always amazed how many folks claim Voyager was horrible coupled with a statement of how they hardly, if ever, watched the show. *




But it _was_ horrible, and I've seen perhaps half the episodes in the series, possibly more.  Even some of Enterprise's worst episodes are better.  Well, correction.  There are Voyager episodes I would rather see than say, "A Night in Sickbay", or "(Enemy) Dawn" again.

"Learning Curve" I think was a good episode, though the ending was a bit hokey.  My favorite part is when that mouthy Maquis officer says, "We've always done thinks the Maquis way, and it works for me," and then Chakotay decks him.  That reminds me of the most disappointing aspects of Voyager: Chakotay.  He could have been one of the most interesting characters, but they really didn't seem to develop him much.

Another of my favorites is "The Killing Game".  The Hirogen captain in that episode was a very interesting character.  He started by taking Voyager as a trophy, but actually learned about humans from the programs he was using, and becam concerned about the survival of his race.


----------



## John Crichton (May 25, 2003)

I'm actually in the same "haven't seen too many Voyager episodes" camp.  I have caught a few more on reruns recently but I can't claim that I've seen more than maybe 25-30 episodes at this point.  Out of the ones that I did see, I liked about 5.  The only one that I REALLY thought was excellent was the one directed by LeVar Burton that had Voyager crashing on that frozen planet and there was some time-travelesque stuff going on.  That was very cool.  I also enjoyed "Year of Hell."  There were maybe one or two others in there that I didn't feel were bad but I have to say that the majority of the eps that I saw (which is admittedly not a good cross-section of viewing) were terrible in both plot and general character development.

I didn't like most of the characters and I hated the Captain which is death for any Trek series.  Now, I didn't love Sisko on DS9 (I thought he was one of the weaker characters) but I didn't hate him which is fine by me as the rest of the cast was great.  On Voyager, the only characters I liked were Seven (who, IMO was the best pure actor/actress on the show, forget her looks) and the Doctor.  Tuvok was on/off but I didn't hate him.  The rest of the main crew did nothing for me.

Enterprise has at least been good enough to keep me watching every week.  Voyager couldn't do that, which I believe was its main failing as a viewer and huge Trek fan.  It just simply didn't entertain me.  Enterprise has brought me back into the Trek fold after Voyager and the Next Gen movies soured Trek for me.

Actually, now that I think of it I'm going to tell Tivo right now to record Voyager for me so I not only have something to watch over the summer, but so I can get a better view of the show....

God help me.


----------



## rafrost (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				myrdden said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think that's just a relic from the past.  It was a plot device used in TOS to allow for a "Submarine-type-chase" story.  It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense now - but the episode is still a classic.
> 
> ...




I don't understand how you can say it does'nt make sence now.  I remember reading about sublight romulan technology, and how amazing it was that it took so long to grind them back home during the war.

What source material am I missing?  Yes it helped to fit a 'Sub chase", but doesn't change the speed.


----------



## Umbran (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				rafrost said:
			
		

> *I don't understand how you can say it does'nt make sence now.  I remember reading about sublight romulan technology, and how amazing it was that it took so long to grind them back home during the war.
> *




Because, if they don't have warp technology, you don't have to "grind them back home".  They couldn't stop a warp-capable fleet from going straight to Romulus and cutting off the serpent's head right at the start of the war.  

Fighting a warp-capable fleet with sublight ships would rather be like fighting modern mach-capable jets with piper cubs.  As far as a sub-light ship is concerned, somethign capable of Warp 2 might as well be teleporting.  The sublight ships cannot outrun, or chase, and can't even really manuver worth a darn by comparison.  Might as well cut the engines and wait to be killed, because teh warp ships are going to come and go as they darned well please.


----------



## rafrost (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because, if they don't have warp technology, you don't have to "grind them back home".  They couldn't stop a warp-capable fleet from going straight to Romulus and cutting off the serpent's head right at the start of the war.
> 
> Fighting a warp-capable fleet with sublight ships would rather be like fighting modern mach-capable jets with piper cubs.  As far as a sub-light ship is concerned, somethign capable of Warp 2 might as well be teleporting.  The sublight ships cannot outrun, or chase, and can't even really manuver worth a darn by comparison.  Might as well cut the engines and wait to be killed, because teh warp ships are going to come and go as they darned well please. *




Just because its not logical doesn't make it true in Star Trek.  

Please cite an example from a story, plot or other source.  Just cause you say a warp-fleet can do this, doesn't make it so.  You should have seen enough Trek over the years to realize that.  The script writers aren't  and never have been that consistent.

A clever enemy may be able to find ways to stop that fleet from bypassing its defences.


----------



## Orius (May 27, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *I'm actually in the same "haven't seen too many Voyager episodes" camp.  I have caught a few more on reruns recently but I can't claim that I've seen more than maybe 25-30 episodes at this point.  Out of the ones that I did see, I liked about 5.  The only one that I REALLY thought was excellent was the one directed by LeVar Burton that had Voyager crashing on that frozen planet and there was some time-travelesque stuff going on.  That was very cool.  I also enjoyed "Year of Hell."  There were maybe one or two others in there that I didn't feel were bad but I have to say that the majority of the eps that I saw (which is admittedly not a good cross-section of viewing) were terrible in both plot and general character development.*




I saw both of those too.  The first one, about Voyager crashing on the frozen planet, I don't remember all that well.  It's not a personal favorite, but isn't as bad as some.

"Year of Hell" was another good one.  The ending was particularly good: the only way the timeline could be completely was restored was through the destruction of the timeship.



> *
> I didn't like most of the characters and I hated the Captain which is death for any Trek series.  Now, I didn't love Sisko on DS9 (I thought he was one of the weaker characters) but I didn't hate him which is fine by me as the rest of the cast was great.  On Voyager, the only characters I liked were Seven (who, IMO was the best pure actor/actress on the show, forget her looks) and the Doctor.  Tuvok was on/off but I didn't hate him.  The rest of the main crew did nothing for me.*




Not quite the case with me.  I hated Janeway, and Neelix to a lesser extent, but I felt rather indifferent towards the other characters.  They just weren't developed enough, especially after Seven and the Doctor started hogging the plots.  Jeri Ryan and Robert Picardo were both decent actors.  Tuvok had his ups and downs.  There was the episode "Flashback", where he badmouthed Sulu, but there was also good interplay between him and Kes, and then later Seven.


----------



## Orius (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because, if they don't have warp technology, you don't have to "grind them back home".  They couldn't stop a warp-capable fleet from going straight to Romulus and cutting off the serpent's head right at the start of the war.   *




Exaclty.  Humans are capable of at least Warp 5 at the start of the Romulan War.  Having no warp drive at all would have put the Romulans at a very severe disadvntage.  There's no way in hell they'd have been a serious threat without warp drive.  I think the fact that "Balance of Terror" was a very early Trek episode written before a lot of basic assumptions were established needs to be taken into account.


----------



## Staffan (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				rafrost said:
			
		

> *Please cite an example from a story, plot or other source.  Just cause you say a warp-fleet can do this, doesn't make it so.  You should have seen enough Trek over the years to realize that.  The script writers aren't  and never have been that consistent.*



Isn't there a Picard Maneuver around that deals with using warp drive against non-warp-capable opponents to some sort of great advantage? I vaguely recall something along the lines of moving around the opponent, firing phasers so you hit with multiple shots simultaneously.


----------



## Umbran (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				rafrost said:
			
		

> *Please cite an example from a story, plot or other source.  *




Okey-doke.  I will cite what Staffan mentioned, the "Picard Manuver".  First described to us in the 1st season ST:TNG episode, "The Battle".

In this manuver, a ship goes to warp over a short distance.  If you can move from point A to B faster than light, then you can often arrive at point B while the enemy still _sees_ you at point A.  

This may seem to be of limited utility, but it is only one example to show that Trek, when shepherded by someone who actually knows at least a bit about science, recognizes the abilities of warp ships that sublight vessles don't have.  

Simply put, TOS episodes and book that had Romulans without warp tech weren't properly thought through.  I won't cry to see them correct that rather nasty error in Enterprise continuity.  Go ahead and give the Romulans warp technology. Simply don't allow the early Romulans to cloak and warp at the same time, and everything's cool.


----------



## buzzard (May 27, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm always amazed how many folks claim Voyager was horrible coupled with a statement of how they hardly, if ever, watched the show.  Let's stick with a discussion of things with which you are familiar so my forehead doesn't get brick impressions...
> *




This statement is one I find to be utterly ridiculous. I mean, ok it is possible that a show could be great, and that everyone who saw any espisodes thought it was poor because they saw the wrong episodes. However, this is a slim probability. Also the premise of your statement is that people would have to sit and watch a show they hated to properly claim that it was poor. How many people are that masochistic? 

I watched a number of episodes during the first season. They sucked. The characters were all annoying (except the doctor). The premise was weak. I would periodically attempt to watch an episode during the later seasons, but was always dissapointed. I don't have a running total of episodes watched, but I know it wasn't many. It didn't take much exposure to make me loathe that show. 

buzzard


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 27, 2003)

Well, I liked VOY for the first three season. Kinda lacked focus, 
but there were quite a lot of good episodes there. It wasn't until 
season 4+ that the show _really_ started to go downhill.


----------



## Mark (May 27, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *This statement is one I find to be utterly ridiculous.*




Just as I find saying something sucks in total when you are only familiar with a portion of it is ridiculous.  So let's delve further into your reasoning and see if we can't sort this out a bit, eh? 



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *I mean, ok it is possible that a show could be great, and that everyone who saw any espisodes thought it was poor because they saw the wrong episodes.*




OK.  Fair enough.  That has nothing to do with someone _saying_ the whole show sucked, does it?  Except that they are saying something based on knowing merely a portion, correct?



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *However, this is a slim probability. *




Perhaps.  But more likely that they larger the portion they saw the more qualified they might be to stand in judgment of the whole with anything resembling credible authority.



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *Also the premise of your statement is that people would have to sit and watch a show they hated to properly claim that it was poor.*




I stated no premise but your assumption is nearly correct.  "...people would have to sit and watch a show they hated to properly claim that it was poor"..._in its entirety..._



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *How many people are that masochistic? *




You have an Internet connection so I assume that, like me, you read a great deal of material that turns out to have little to no value, not even as a passing entertainment.  I think we should both forego statements about masochistic tendancies... 



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *I watched a number of episodes during the first season.*




Then I would have to suggest that you could fairly give your opinion on the first season, but I would hasten to remind you that the quality of all of the series connected with ST were of much lower quality in their first season compared to latter seasons.



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *They sucked.*




Clarify beyond generalizations, if you can please.



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *The characters were all annoying (except the doctor).*




During the course of the first season of any of the ST series characters were only beginning to develop.  Enterprise has probably had the characters that have shown the most development in a short period of time whereas the chaarcters from TOS, barring Spock, may have shown the least development throughout the course of the entire series.  What was it about the Doctor that allowed you not to be annoyed by his character?



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *The premise was weak.*




The premise of the show was that a ship gets propelled far away from the area of space that is known and strives to return even though it is a much longer journey than could theorectically be done in a single lifetime of the majority of the crew (vulcans, and perhaps a few others as exceptions.)  How is that weak?



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *I would periodically attempt to watch an episode during the later seasons, but was always dissapointed.*




As with most series, jumping in late can be difficult.  The most difficult of the ST series to do such a thing may have been DS9 where the characters and plots seemed to be most intertwined from episode to episode and season to season.



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *I don't have a running total of episodes watched, but I know it wasn't many.*




No problem.  Let's discuss what you know and leave aside what you do not.



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> *It didn't take much exposure to make me loathe that show. *




Can you be more specific beyond "sucked"?  If you cannot, that's fine.  I'll make note of that and whenever a Voyager discussion comes up I'll already have that opinion in mind and we can save you the trouble of chiming in, OK? 



			
				Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Well, I liked VOY for the first three season. Kinda lacked focus,
> but there were quite a lot of good episodes there. It wasn't until
> season 4+ that the show really started to go downhill. *




That's rather odd.  I found Kes to be a bit annoying and didn't really enojoy the show as much in the earlier episodes.  Her voice was kinda grating, to me, and she had a condescending lilt to it.  Some people I know have called it "soothing" while others agreed with me.  A lot of people have mentioned in the past that they didn't enjoy the show until Seven of Nine came on the scene.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by buzzard:_
> 
> How many people are that masochistic?




Well, I for one.....


----------



## rafrost (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Okey-doke.  I will cite what Staffan mentioned, the "Picard Manuver".  First described to us in the 1st season ST:TNG episode, "The Battle".
> 
> ...




I can handle the 'Picard Maneuver' except that Picard wasn't born yet when the Feds were fighting the Roms.  Would they  have named it for him if he were'nt the first to use it?

I have to agree with you, the Roms must have had warp drive, just not much of one.  Perhaps slightly better than warp 1, maybe warp 2?  Who cares.  

My real point is that Earth and Romulus had to be very far apart.  It should be too far to be bothered with at this time, except by accident.

It just reminds me of the continuity error in the first episode of enterprise, where the are able to get to the Klingon capital in far to short a period of time.  Three days if I remember correctly.

In general it show poor contiunity on the part of the writers, and it continues to get worse.


----------



## Eternalknight (May 28, 2003)

Oh boy.  This is starting to degenerate into a Voyager bashing thread....  a pet peeve of Mark's and mine.

Now, to try and get it back on track...

Who can't wait to see some inverted bodies in the Delphi Expanse???


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *Who can't wait to see some inverted bodies in the Delphi Expanse???   *




If they run into them early next season, we'll get some insider knowledge...


----------



## Eternalknight (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If they run into them early next season, we'll get some insider knowledge...  *




Oh thats just bad!!!  Must have taken some guts to come up with that one


----------



## Ghostwind (May 28, 2003)

Talk about bursting at the seams...


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

What can I say.  I wear my heart on my sleeve...


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just as I find saying something sucks in total when you are only familiar with a portion of it is ridiculous.  So let's delve further into your reasoning and see if we can't sort this out a bit, eh?
> *




Better yet, how about we don't?
I have little desire to  get stuck in a discussion with a Voyager fanatic. I'd just as soon avoid your little jihad. I'd have as much luck convincing you, or for that matter, you convincing me, as I would have of convincing someone to like chocolate if they did not. 

Let's try objective facts:
1) It was unpopular
2) It is widely subject to derision
3) Essenially everyone I know, who doesn't hate it, merely tolerates it. 

Now granted all of the above facts are based upon subjective analysis. However they consist of substancial bodies of opinion, and in subjective matters, you have little other recourse for weighting. 

Thus we return to my initial assertion -Voyager sucks. I will add the caveat, IMHO, though it would be more accurate to say in almost everyone's opinion rather than my own, but I speak only for myself. 

buzzard


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *Let's try objective facts:
> 1) It was unpopular
> 2) It is widely subject to derision
> 3) Essenially everyone I know, who doesn't hate it, merely tolerates it. *




At one time also describing Jimmy Carter, spinach and dentistry...


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> At one time also describing Jimmy Carter, spinach and dentistry... *




Since politics are banned, we'll drop the first example. The others are inane. 
Are you somehow implying that Voyager is healthy? Does it somehow contribute to the well being of the viewer (in an objective sense)? Does it alleviate painful or harmful conditions(IMHO it causes them)? Umm, don't think so. 

My allusion to someone who doesn't like chocolate would be much closer to reality. The Voyager fan is the one who doesn't like chocolate. Most people do, and neither side is likely to convince the other. 

buzzard


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Since politics are banned, we'll drop the first example. The others are inane.
> Are you somehow implying that Voyager is healthy? Does it somehow contribute to the well being of the viewer (in an objective sense)? Does it alleviate painful or harmful conditions(IMHO it causes them)? Umm, don't think so.
> ...




I think you have your negatives and positives backwards.

A Voyager fan isn't someone who doesn't like something.  A Voyager fan is someone who does like something.  A person who derides Voyager, or Voyager fans, is someone who doesn't like something.  If someone doesn't like something they should avoid that thing and allow those who enjoy it to do so...but that doesn't seem to be your goal, does it?


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *Now granted all of the above facts are based upon subjective analysis. However they consist of substancial bodies of opinion, and in subjective matters, you have little other recourse for weighting.  *




Actually, there's is one point of recourse - reference to an even more substantial body of opinion.  In this case, the Neilsen families.

In a television environment where something like 50% of all shows fail to make it through a second season, Voyager lasted for seven seasons.  Voyager didn't stink so bad that it failed to be profitable.  And that's saying a great deal, considering the high production costs of a sci-fi show.

Shows that really and truly stink simply do not survive the competition.  While you may not have liked it personally, the worst that can be said for a long-term surviving show is that it was mediocre.


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you have your negatives and positives backwards.
> 
> A Voyager fan isn't someone who doesn't like something.  A Voyager fan is someone who does like something.  A person who derides Voyager, or Voyager fans, is someone who doesn't like something.  If someone doesn't like something they should avoid that thing and allow those who enjoy it to do so...but that doesn't seem to be your goal, does it? *




Ahh, but you see I'm having trouble finding an analogy which is equally unpopular as Voyager which people are willing to defend. I imagine there is something of the sort out there, but I haven't thought of it. Ok, maybe the Cincinatti Bengals. That might be appropriate. You're a Bungles fan then. Satisfied?

buzzard


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, there's is one point of recourse - reference to an even more substantial body of opinion.  In this case, the Neilsen families.
> 
> ...




This is valid. I will certainly grant Voyager the benighted status of being as good as, say, Full House. Maybe even Americas Funniest Videos. 

buzzard


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ahh, but you see I'm having trouble finding an analogy which is equally unpopular as Voyager which people are willing to defend. I imagine there is something of the sort out there, but I haven't thought of it. Ok, maybe the Cincinatti Bengals. That might be appropriate. You're a Bungles fan then. Satisfied?
> 
> buzzard *




Why not get really nasty and equate the level of my taste in entertainment with the level of your etiquette?  You seem troubled in your life.  Have you considered alternatives?


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is valid. I will certainly grant Voyager the benighted status of being as good as, say, Full House. Maybe even Americas Funniest Videos.
> 
> buzzard *




But of the three, you've not watched much of Voyager...


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 28, 2003)

Do we have to do the VOY thing?

Here's the thing, even though I didn't like VOY as much in the 
later seasons as the earlier (the little focus the show had, just 
vanished in vapor) I still enjoyed the run. I just didn't like it as 
much as the other Trek shows. Instead of feeling passionate 
about it, like the Buffyverse shows, shows I thoroughly enjoyed 
and couldn't wait for the each new episode, VOY went into the 
I'll-watch-if-it-I-ain't-doing-something-more-fun with shows like 
Law & Order and the hordes of mediocre sitcoms. It was allright
but I'll never buy the DVDs.

Fortunately, for the show, I was never really anything more fun
in it's time spots, so I usually watched it. That is, until the 7th 
season when I was fairly busy and a lot of shows suffered from 
that (because you just KNOW all they really want is to have ME
watching the show  ). I still watched the finale though.


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

The only show where I considered buying DVDs is SG-1.


----------



## Mallus (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *The only show where I considered buying DVDs is SG-1.  *




Not B5??!

Not DS9!??

Not Coupling??!! {okay, so that one doesn't belong in a discussion of SF shows, but if you're never seen it, poke around your PBS stations and see if you get it. It also ran on BBC America...}


----------



## Mark (May 28, 2003)

Some time back I taped a handful of ST shows (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY) with the thought of collecting them all.  I found that I did not enjoy them nearly as much as just catching them whenever they happened to air.  Perhaps if they reran less it might renew might interest in collecting them.  Maybe not.

SG-1, however, I find very fresh and enjoyable and can pop in a few episodes that I've seen and still enjoy them.

B5 never really interested me.  I tuned in from time to time over the run of the series and the acting just never seemed to improve.  I tried to give it a chance, again and again, but it never grabbed me.  As bad as some some ST episodes could be I never got that same feeling from any of the ST series.  It's hard to explain.  I felt like the actors on B5 were always aware that they were in a show, in a costume, in alien make-up, etc.  If they weren't buying it, I couldn't bring myself to emotionally invest in it either.  I couldn't lose that aesthetic distance as required by fiction in general and sci-fi even moreso.  It may not have been the show, but perhaps just me at the times I happen to watch, but there were a lot of times.


----------



## el-remmen (May 28, 2003)

I have to say that what bothered me about Voyager was the characters - not the premise or even the plots of the episodes I have seen (though some were much better than others and some were absolutely. . ugh - but that is true of all shows (even a brilliant one like _Buffy_)) - and I never could much accept Seven of Nine (i hated Hugh as well from TNG) - if anything the BORG have been much more over-used than the Romulans

With ENTERPRISE, I like the characters - I like the captain, i love Phlox, and Trip and even the gunnery guy (what's his name again?) and T'Pol (the helmsman is kind of lackluster) -and even wish (as I have said before) that they'd introduce more secondary characters (like TNG had Broccoli and Ro and O'Brian and his wife) - I have just felt the plots are weak and what excited me about the show is not coming to fruition - exploring all the stuff mentioned in the past shows and movies - even if it turns out different that'd be fine (wouldn't be the first time that the record of history and what actually happened differ somewhat).  I want more stories involving the Andorians and the Vulcans and the Klingons and all that good stuff - and a god-like being or a society based on some ancient earth culture or something like that.


----------



## Mallus (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *B5 never really interested me.  I tuned in from time to time over the run of the series and the acting just never seemed to improve.*




That's very true. B5 was consistent: the bad actors stayed bad... but the good actors stayed good, even as their characters became totally different individuals by the shows end.

Much of the acting made me cringe. However, Londo and G'Kar {Peter Jurasik and Andreas Katsulas, respectively}, deliver two of the finest performances in SF history. At least IMHO.


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why not get really nasty and equate the level of my taste in entertainment with the level of your etiquette?  You seem troubled in your life.  Have you considered alternatives?  *




Naah, my etiquette is far worse. Alas, it doesn't bother me though. 

However, I'm not the one who gets worked up about people disparaging an unpopular show. I'd reccomend some inwards looks on that troubled life topic. 

buzzard


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But of the three, you've not watched much of Voyager... *




Actually I put up with far more of Voyager in the hopes that it would be good than I was willing to expend on the other dreck. It just didn't manage to climb out of the common pool of slime. 

buzzard


----------



## Mark (May 29, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *(I know you are but what am I?) *




Actually, it appears that you are getting workes up, and as someone who claims to not even like the show.  _The lady doth protest too much, methinks..._  Why not simply back down from your ned to assault fans of _Voyager_ with your cries of "Sucks! Sucks!" and go your merry way.  Spend some time on a show you enjoy.  You'll find it more worthwhile.


----------



## Mark (May 29, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's very true. B5 was consistent: the bad actors stayed bad... but the good actors stayed good, even as their characters became totally different individuals by the shows end.
> 
> Much of the acting made me cringe. However, Londo and G'Kar {Peter Jurasik and Andreas Katsulas, respectively}, deliver two of the finest performances in SF history. At least IMHO. *




Perhps I can give it another chance, and enjoy the good portions while not allowing the reminader to bother me.  I've also heard it would be best to watch straight from the beginning, though.  Maybe collecting the series is the only way to ensure I see it in the best light.


----------



## Mark (May 29, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> * -and even wish (as I have said before) that they'd introduce more secondary characters (like TNG had Broccoli and Ro and O'Brian and his wife) - *




They had an Ensign Cutler in the show that was along those lines and trading time with Phlox, but the person in the role got an offer to do another show fulltime, I guess, and took door number two.  Hard to keep people around, I suppose, when they need to work as much as they can.  They've got the General and his troops coming on board next fall.  That should add plenty of secondary characters.


----------



## John Crichton (May 29, 2003)

On secondary characters:  Admiral Forest and Savol are 2 that come to mind.    They're not on the ship but they do show up in a healthy chunk of the episodes.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 29, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Perhps I can give it another chance, and enjoy the good portions while not allowing the reminader to bother me.  I've also heard it would be best to watch straight from the beginning, though.  Maybe collecting the series is the only way to ensure I see it in the best light. *



Yeah, B5 is one of these shows that's very hard to get into 
midstream. I saw a couple of episodes and thought little of it. 
Some of the acting was all over the place (mostly the guest stars, 
I guess they were cheap), the sets seemed to be collapsing on
themselves and the FX seemed like an mediocre video game. And 
the plotlines were not only confusing but also just seemed 
generally boring. _Politics_?!? I mean, I like politics are great 
with other stuff, but only politics? Ugh!

Nuttin' that caught my fancy.

Then, when bored, I rented the first few episodes on video and I 
just immediently needed to know more. So I rented more and 
more and had watched the whole series in under three months. 

It's that damn good!


----------



## buzzard (May 29, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> translated to:
> (I need to have the last word so SHUT UP! You insulted my precious Voyager!)*




You know, you ought to learn to live with someone criticizing your show. It would probably reduce your stress level. I don't really manage to invest enough in any show I watch to waste this much time defending it. Heck, I'm just enjoying stringing you along at the moment. 

buzzard


----------



## Eternalknight (May 29, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, you ought to learn to live with someone criticizing your show. It would probably reduce your stress level. I don't really manage to invest enough in any show I watch to waste this much time defending it. Heck, I'm just enjoying stringing you along at the moment.
> 
> buzzard *




Guys, can we talk about Enterprise?

Ok, we have been speculating about then next season - now, what would you like to see happen?


----------



## buzzard (May 29, 2003)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Guys, can we talk about Enterprise?
> 
> Ok, we have been speculating about then next season - now, what would you like to see happen? *




Fair enough. I have to say I didn't really see the need for the change in direction myself. I thought the series was fine (with some bowser episodes, but what show is free from them?).  They already had a story arc (TCW). I guess they just wanted to jazz things up. Were ratings that bad?

I'm not really sure what to expect. I imagine that the Delphic stuff will just let the writers do all kinds of funky stuff. I suspect that is the justification. 

buzzard


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 29, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *Were ratings that bad?
> *




Yes


----------



## Mark (May 29, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> *Fair enough.*




Sounds good.



			
				buzzard said:
			
		

> * I have to say I didn't really see the need for the change in direction myself. I thought the series was fine (with some bowser episodes, but what show is free from them?).  They already had a story arc (TCW). I guess they just wanted to jazz things up. Were ratings that bad?
> 
> I'm not really sure what to expect. I imagine that the Delphic stuff will just let the writers do all kinds of funky stuff. I suspect that is the justification.*




I think you're right about the extended freedom the writers will have with this new tact.  The ratings were lower than anyone would have hoped for an ST series and I'm all for anything that ensures a better show and one that lasts for a full run.


----------



## myrdden (May 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When do the Romulans get warp drive?*



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Simply put, TOS episodes and book that had Romulans without warp tech weren't properly thought through.  I won't cry to see them correct that rather nasty error in Enterprise continuity.  Go ahead and give the Romulans warp technology. Simply don't allow the early Romulans to cloak and warp at the same time, and everything's cool. *




Amen to that.

Myrdden


----------



## Orius (May 30, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *That's rather odd.  I found Kes to be a bit annoying and didn't really enojoy the show as much in the earlier episodes.  Her voice was kinda grating, to me, and she had a condescending lilt to it.  Some people I know have called it "soothing" while others agreed with me.  A lot of people have mentioned in the past that they didn't enjoy the show until Seven of Nine came on the scene. *




I'm sort of with you on this.  I never really cared much for Kes.  The basic idea behind her character, that she was from a race with a 9-year life expectancy was kind of lame if you ask me.   And she bored me, I never really found her interesting.  Her voice didn't really annoy me though.

I lost interest in Voyager around the middle of the second season.  I found the show to be terribly dull and boring.  I think perhaps the Kazon contributed to that; they weren't really any threat, but Janeway handled them poorly.  I though the show did get more interesting for a while after Seven was introduced, until all the episodes started revolving around Seven and the Doctor.  I hated that Naomi Wildman kid, and local syndication of the episodes got a little unreliable.  They kept moving between different timeslots, and I'm not even sure if the seventh season was aired, but at that point I didn't really care.   They are aired every weeknight on a regular basis, so I occasionally catch some episodes I missed.


----------



## Orius (May 30, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> B5 never really interested me.  I tuned in from time to time over the run of the series and the acting just never seemed to improve.  I tried to give it a chance, again and again, but it never grabbed me.  As bad as some some ST episodes could be I never got that same feeling from any of the ST series.  It's hard to explain.  I felt like the actors on B5 were always aware that they were in a show, in a costume, in alien make-up, etc.  If they weren't buying it, I couldn't bring myself to emotionally invest in it either.  I couldn't lose that aesthetic distance as required by fiction in general and sci-fi even moreso.  It may not have been the show, but perhaps just me at the times I happen to watch, but there were a lot of times. *




::gasp::



BURN THE HERETIC!!!!!!


----------



## Orius (May 30, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Perhps I can give it another chance, and enjoy the good portions while not allowing the reminader to bother me.  I've also heard it would be best to watch straight from the beginning, though.  Maybe collecting the series is the only way to ensure I see it in the best light. *




Probably; to really enjoy the show, you have to see the story arc to apprecitate it.  A lot of first season and some early second season episodes can be skipped (though even then JMS dribbles hints all over the place in those episodes), but most of the 2nd 3rd and 4th season is relevant to the overall story.  Season 5 can be skipped totally.  That was what made B5 cool, everything had a sort of unity to it.  It's also what made it inaccessable to the casual viewer.  I admit there are a hell of a lot of dull moments, such as filler material to make 22 episodes for a whole season, but the good stuff really outshines the boring stuff.


----------



## Eternalknight (May 30, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> ...




Well the second series hasn't even began to be aired over here (Australia) - I have a friend in the States who sends me video tapes in case you were wondering.  

I'm not sure what the ratings were like for Enterprise here, but traditionally Star Trek ALWAYS gets low ratings due to the time slot it is normally allotted (usually Tuesday at 11pm).  I mean, we still haven't seen the end of DS9 or Voyager on TV yet (we have the videos in our video stores for quite some time though).


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 30, 2003)

Oh, I'm not saying I particularly cared for Kes (except she's cuter 
than Seven). That has nothing to do with it. I wasn't horribly 
shocked or angry when they "evolved" her off the show, I just
find that the earlier seasons were more consistant. The later 
seasons were all over the place. They did have more peaks of 
brilliance but a lot higher percent of 'em were stinkers. I'd rather
watch a show that's consistantly mediocre but a series of stinkers
with a few great episodes thrown in here and there.


----------



## Orius (May 30, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Oh, I'm not saying I particularly cared for Kes (except she's cuter than Seven). That has nothing to do with it. I wasn't horribly shocked or angry when they "evolved" her off the show, I justfind that the earlier seasons were more consistant.*




Yeah, consistantly boring.  

Seriously though, the show never grabbed my interest wih the early episodes.  Some of the first season episodes weren't too bad, but Janeway's decisions and the crew's blind loyalty to her failed to grab my attention.  I will agree with you about Kes, she was more attractive than Seven, but Seven was a more interesting character, at least until she started getting overused.



> * The later seasons were all over the place. They did have more peaks of  brilliance but a lot higher percent of 'em were stinkers. I'd rather watch a show that's consistantly mediocre but a series of stinkers with a few great episodes thrown in here and there. *




I think that's somewhat true of most of the _Trek series_.  With TOS, the first two seasons were fairly solid, although they had moments of cheesiness.  The third season was worse, and seemed to really ramp up the cheese factor ("Spock's Brain", "The Way to Eden", etc).  However, the third season did have the occasional good episode, like "The Enterprise Incident" (maybe it was good because it had Romulans  ).

With TNG, things seemed to be the same.  The first four seasons were pretty good, but after that the show started cranking out some bad episodes.  There were some great ones in there, but many were lame and stupid.

DS9 seemed to have been the exception.  Perhaps the fact that they had a focused storyline helped, or maybe it's because Ira Steven Behr was made Berman's co-executive producer.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 30, 2003)

Orius said:
			
		

> *With TNG, things seemed to be the same.  The first four seasons were pretty good, but after that the show started cranking out some bad episodes.  There were some great ones in there, but many were lame and stupid.*



There we disagree again. The first two seasons of TNG were very 
lackluster but seasons 3-6 were really good, the peak being 4-5 
IMHO. Of course, season 7 was somewhat bad, since all the best
writers had gone over to DS9 (Ira, Piller, Moore) or were developing
VOY (Ryan and uh.. more) or working on Generations (like Braga).


----------



## Kesh (Jun 1, 2003)

My biggest problem with Voyager (aside from generally dull stories), was that they got away from part of their original concept. I remember reading in an interview that part of the plan was to show the ship as it deteriorated over time, due to constant battles and anomalies they encountered. The crew would become a little more diverse as they picked up more replacement crew from worlds they visited.

Instead, we had a shiny Voyager throughout most of the series, and the crew never really changed from its original Federation/Maquis complement.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 1, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *The later
> seasons were all over the place. They did have more peaks of
> brilliance (snip) *




I can think of a couple...


----------

