Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
New shippy-ship confirmed in next week's Enterprise (minor $)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phelps: [QB] Yeah, I quite agree. Archer's ship should only be shown if we have a large room, 'cause otherwise it only takes up space next to the the Ent-B, Ent-C, or the aircraft carrier intended for battle, not exploration. Starfleet must be hiring a lot of weird artists for these displays, since none of them seem to understand which ships are the most important for Starfleet, but rather make choices based on such trivialties as their prefices, or whether or not they were in the Federation. I wonder what the captains of these ships think about this. Picard probably had the display removed in later seasons because of its inconsistencies, and because Commander Riker was staring at it too much during briefings. I personally would expect Archer, being a Cochrane and Earth ships fan, to complain that the ring-ship named Enterprise wasn't included in *his* display. The_Tom: I wasn't being absolutist when I said "gods". I used the word in the same good-natured sense people sometimes take with experts in a field that were their inspirations, etc. JMS would offend a hard-core fan if he thought the fan wanted to impose on him what B5 should be about. However, did you know that explorer ships were invented because a fan asked how the jump gates are transported there in the first place? He's partly online for fans to ask questions that can flesh out his shows, make them more real. Television business is about making money. There are two ways to do it -- come up with something innovative that will catch the audience, or come up with ripoffs that you know are artistic ripoffs, but simply work well because they rip off other, successful shows. It's part of being in television business -- you play it safe or you risk, whichever works best for you. Braga and Berman are in the first category, JMS, Matt Groening, David Chase, Chris Carter are in the other. I don't think anyone disputes that. By innovating, these guys don't go against Hollywood. JMS never said that because Hollywood helped him get to where he is now. It's just there are people in the world who think that if they prove themselves in writing, and take risks and try to get better every day, that's the way to succeed. So they gravitate towards doing new shows, rather than ripping off other shows for money. Other people have a different idea of innovation, or an interest in not taking risks, so they choose to shepherd a franchise that is ripping off itself. That's a perfectly understandable thing in TV. Makes business sense. However, it usually turns out that the innovative shows, *if they succeed*, capture more audience than shows that are not as innovative. It is believed by JMS and other writers who work on TV that Star Trek could afford to take chances because it's has a strong fan base and a huge budget. It might be the way to go since Star Trek no longer captures the average viewer, the uninvited viewer. I was stunned at how many people watch "Sopranos" around here, and it's certainly not because it has an everyday format. Hence it wouldn't matter that Star Trek is science fiction, as long as it's done right. What about X-Files? Buffy? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3