posted
Back in 1994, opinions about the forthcoming new show "Star Trek: Voyager" seemed generally optimistic. It was an exciting time for Trek anyway: you had the end of "The Next Generation," the upcoming release of Star Trek: Generations" and, in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" they had just encountered a new and seemingly all-powerful enemy, the Jem'Hadar.
Leap forward to 2001, and what do we have? "Voyager" has just ended, to much indifference, some relief, but very little regret. What we know of the tenth film looks good on paper, but everyone ius waiting to see the finished result and expecting enough changes to make the finished article quite unlike what we wre expecting. And, the new show "Enterprise" is lumbering into production, veiled in secrecy and to a chorus of fan disapproval.
There are some dissenting voices as a counterpoint to that chorus. They say we're being overly negative; that we're letting an obsession with minutiae and trivia overwhelm any possibility of an unbiased viewpoint; that we're hypocrites who'll all watch it anyway; above all, that we at least GIVE IT A CHANCE!
Fair enough.
I haven't conducted a poll of who's in which camp; if I did, I'd really love to compare it against the list of those who said "give Trek a break" and their opponents the "I'll watch anything as long as it's Trek."
Maybe we've all become too cynical. Seven years of disappointment (not just Voyager; "Insurrection" didn't help) has eroded the fans' own sense of wonder that Berman and Braga hasten to ascribe to their new starship Captain, Jonathan Archer. Add to this the diminishing of Roddenberry vision - DS9 is a prime culprit, with its "space battle of the week" mentality - and also factor in rapid commmunications over the Internet changing the nature of fan interaction, and it's safe to say it isn't 1994 anymore!
So - will I watch. Probably. I will "give it a chance." But my life's changing. I don't have a lot of time to devote to following TV shows. If it's not good, I'll abandon it in short order.
------------------ "If Morden is afraid of green penguins, and Draal is shown to have access to them, a speculation would be that Draal will use them against Morden in the future. However if Draal only has a purple moose, saying that he could use it against Morden would be a story idea."
posted
My first and foremost reservation against "Enterprise" is that I'm just not excited at all (as a fan) about the premise with all its limitations, carelessness and dangers. My rants about continuity, insufficiently considered premise and characters (production-wise) come second.
After twelve years of "new Trek" (TNG first aired 1989 in Germany) I'm still not tired of it and I could go on watching something like DS9 or Voyager forever. These series have always extended my horizon, despite occasional rehashed plots and bad writing (of which also DS9 had its share). The often quoted "sense of wonder" ironically is what I can expect least of all from the new series. It just can't be "to boldly go where no man has gone before" unless they completely screw up history.
As for giving it a chance, I admit that I have enormous objections and preconceptions that will prevent me from enjoying it from the very beginning. Time must show if I nevertheless get accustomed to it. But after all, no one can force me to like it only because it's Star Trek - there has to be a first time for everything.
------------------ "There is an intelligent lifeform out on the other side of that television too." (Gene Roddenberry) Ex Astris Scientia
posted
I'm in the "I'll watch it until they give me reason not to" camp. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with and hopefully getting to see a plethora of new ships...but if it sucks...it sucks and the "current era" will stand on its own just fine...
------------------ "The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold, And quite unacustomed to fear. But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told, Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer." Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
posted
Lee, thank you very much for that well-thought-out and meaningful post. It's one of the most insightful I've read yet regarding the new series.
I myself am excited about Enterprise. I realize that they are treading on dangerous territory, but I will watch and enjoy any Star Trek incarnation as long as it captivates me and entertains me. I have no objections to the premise for Enterprise, and, like Aban Rune, I'm going to watch it until I it stops being entertaining or captivating.
------------------ God (using a Devil hand puppet): Yaagh! I'm the Devil! I'm evil! I'm spooky! I'm dark! And I'm evil! Gimme an "E!" Gimme a "V!" Gimme a "U!" Gimme an "L!" What's that spell? Evil! Goooo EVIL! Devil: Hey, yo, that shit ain't funny! --from Tatsuya Ishida's Sinfest
Founder, president, CEO, CFO, COO, under-secretary general, mascot, and caterer of theAPAO
posted
I think some people are putting too much emphasis on the "badness" of the premise. Just because we know the condition of the Federation 150 years after "Enterprise", doesn't mean there won't be things we don't know about the time it's set in. Look at how many good stories there were in TOS, TNG, DS9, that were never referred to again. Just because these series happened after "Enterprise", that doesn't mean that anything that happens in ENT must necessarily have been mentioned in one of the other series. There can be a lot of good stories that wouldn't have enough impact to affect TOS/TNG/DS9, but don't contradict them, either.
That said, I do expect that ENT is going to be a major cock-up, but only because of the people in charge, not because of a problem w/ the premise. However, even though I expect it, I don't assume it to be inevitable, so I'll still watch it to see if my suspicions are confirmed or not.
------------------ "Even the colors are pompous!" -a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure
posted
I'm also in the "Give it a chance until it proves me right it's crap" camp cause the premise doesn't show any promising and interesting stories to me. If they prove me wrong, all the better, new Trek, but if I'm right, then I can just hope we'll get Voyager movies or something.
-------------------- It takes 42 muscles in your face to frown. It only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack someone upside the head.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Someone(s) needs to die for the whole Enterprise premise and Voyager's lacking run too.
-------------------- It takes 42 muscles in your face to frown. It only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack someone upside the head.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You have to realize, that the Internet community of Star Trek fans are not the majority. You go to a convention and they don�t know nearly as much as we "Net Trek" heads do. That�s the majority of the fandom. They will watch Enterprise and probably like it, not even knowing about any continuity errors, and Enterprise will probably run seven years, just like TNG/DS9/VOY and end, and perhaps even make it on the big screen. If people don�t like the premise, we will see another show being developed, perhaps 29th century, during the final 3 seasons of Enterprise, overlapping like DS9 and Voyager did. No matter what, Star Trek will continue. That�s my 2 cents. I'll give Enterprise a chance, and another and another if need be.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
1- It won't die. They won't let it die. If the ratings begin to flag, they'll hire new talent in either the writing (yeah!), acting, or marketing departments.
2- I was tilting towards the "let's hate Enterprise because it is going to be made by the same people who made Voyager" camp. Then I saw all the doomsayers bemoaning the Voyager climax prior to its release. I didn't get to see Endgame immediately, so I've been seeing it get bashed for a few days.
Well I saw it last night. And I liked it. It's no Maltese Falcon - but it wasn't Lost in Space, either.
I am now in the "don't judge it until you've seen it" camp. And it seems as though I may like Enterprise even if some people don't.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
posted
Not merely "don't judge it until you've seen it" - "don't judge it until you've seen all of it!"
Many people hated TNG when the premise was first aired - how could there possibly be Star Trek without Kirk, Spock et al.?
Many people continued to hate TNG after it hit the screens, and for good reason - the first season was largely shite.
By the time it finished we had one of the best series ever to grace the television screens of the human race.
I will watch the new series not because it has the words Star Trek at the front of the title, but because I hope it will embody the Star Trek spirit that Gene Roddenberry injected into all of his work - and that his successors have done their best (albeit not with total success) to preserve.
posted
I would have to agree with you. Based upon TNG, I have always had a three-season policy with Star Trek. TOS was really the only one to get it right in the beginning anyway� the other shows needed a running start (well then there's Voyager, which obviously need a few more seasons to pick up the proper momentum to turn it into a good show).
-------------------- "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It?s us. Only us." Rorschach
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In a sense, I'm looking forward to the new series. Why? Well.. It will be totally new! (in a sense!)
And for us "Net Treks" especially, it should be an exciting time. From TNG to DS9 and right on into Voyager - the same class ships, with the same ol' Federation look'n'feel.
Now, they won't be so pretty - but they'll be sleek??! Bulky 'Event Horizon' type long range ships with warp nacelles??? Who knows?? That's the point.. no one knows.
I think that they'll gear this series as the series that goes '...where no trekker has gone before'.
In a sense... this is the one part of trek history that hasn't be 'completely' written. I asked myself during "First Contact".. what really happens after this movie? Will they mention Picard??
If the newest series was going to be a premise built on the 25th.. or the 26th + centuries .. We'd still be hammering away at it .. cuz either, the technology won't be up to snuff .. or .. They're trying to pull another TNG-Rabbit out of the proverbial Trek-Hat by hopping centuries ahead of the last series.
We can honestly say, they are doing something unique. I'll give it a chance!
I share the same skeptisism as the rest of you, don't get me wrong... and if it sucks... I'll be equally pissed. But I think it has potential.. I just hope they do it right!
quote:That said, I do expect that ENT is going to be a major cock-up, but only because of the people in charge, not because of a problem w/ the premise.
Well said, Tim. I felt exactly the same way about Voyager.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Printer-friendly view of this topic
