A Buckaroo Banzai show is being held up as some sort of guiding light? That tears it. I hate this stupid genre.

------------------
OH NO< THE OLD MAN WALKS HIS GREEN DOG THAT SHOTS PINBALLS!~!!!
--
Jeff K
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and nothing at all will happen.

"Continuity may well be a basic tenet of storytelling, but I'd put it further down the list to originality or theme or effective dialogue. Get them in place first, then turn attention to avoid stepping on toes."

Maybe you do need to read some of essays written by science fiction authors. Go check some places like SFF.net or Science Fiction Writers of America.

Continuity is another word for consistency and credibility. It is held as high by any respectable science fiction author and editor, and if you don't have the C-C-C fundamentally well built into your work, here comes the rejection slip. Despite fervent fans, we find a remarkable lack of continuity complaints in other SF series like B5, Farscape, and X-Files. Maybe there is something to be said about their quality control.

Fortunately it can be fixed up, but not if the inconsistency is so basic to the story---e.g. post armaggedon scenario where civilization is destroyed and you depicted people using money.

"Opposition to "Enterprise" is mainly coming from the deepest darkest recesses of Trek geekdom, largely because of the continuity issues or because they're still deluding themselves thinking that some sort of 25th century tech-fest would be better. This is only a small segment of Trek's audience (even today, let alone when diluted down with the other people that may rejoin the Enterise audience) and is far over-represented online."

This is a totally conjectural statement. Have you been to other message boards that are non Trek? Even when they have an out of topic thread about Enterprise, there is almost vehement opposition to that, and a large number who would give it a try but its not excited about it. And even a larger number who doesn't care at all.

The fact is Enterprise is not exciting to a mainstream audience. It holds no meaning to other SF fans. And to those who still adhere to Trek, it has bitterly divided them.

As for Berman, he's been acting like titular head. He probably overrode Braga after there was sufficient pressure from other people in the staff. In the end, First Contact, like most ST films of late, is a mediocre film.

This is another false assumption. There were also many good shows in those days, and I have to say that a large share of TNG shows can't even be deemed remotely intellectual (TNG ranges from the sublime to the banal). Are you trying to pretend that TNG is something more like the equal of Law and Order? L&O's bit comes from drama and confronting present day social issues. CSI makes a better intellectual show. Excuse me, but Fox placed "Boot Camp" on the same time slot as Voyager and Law and Order for a reason. TNG's failings like in depicting a too perfect utopian world and a starship that no one really connects to. There are many intellectual shows that have existed in this decade, and they have also gone down the tubes.

To assume that Enterprise will be another "intellectual" show is quite incredulous given Berman and Braga's recent track record. On the other hand, it should try to focus by producing a more connectable world to a present day audience, maybe it stands a chance. But some of the statements like this:

"The next season will bring a bending of the rules, without losing [Trek creator Gene] Roddenberry's vision of a hopeful, uplifting future. The Roddenberry perfection of humanity is in the process of happening, but will be not completed when the series begins."--Braga

... is rather troubling. People are not interested on 1960's utopian ideals. It would be better to connect an audience when you take the 24th century Federation and start breaking it apart into the political and moral morass that is more like the United States today.

Roddenberry himself had abandoned visions of uplifting futures, and if anything, both Earth FC and Andromeda had been quite anti-Utopian. Recent SF shows that demonstrated great success have been anti-Utopian---the Outer Limits, Farscape and saving the best for the last---the X-Files.

This is where a thematic paradox lies. Even though the 22nd century is closer to the 20th century, an imperfect, conspirational, and darker Federation of the 25th century may actually be a better reflection of the late 20th-21st century United States, by making parallels, whereas a BOTF premise may be more like a 17th-18th century America, and which may turn out to be a Lorne Green Bonanza or a Davy Crocket pioneer show set in outer space---a kind of show that won't connect to audiences these days. We shall see.

Voyager has gone downhill a lot. From 20 million viewers to only four million. In the history of TV, you have never seen a show that has lost so much audience.

Or maybe they'll comeup with the "Raven" version - where the Fed's new about the Borg a-hem Klingons, but until millions had died - they didn't say anything.

Well, I'd like to think there are more alternatives than tech and character biology in sci-fi, but yes, that's what I've been saying all along.
But you started with: "Science fiction is about the consequence of technology on human life and society."
Now you seem to have realised that technology isn't required as a cornerstone.

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

And a while back I said:

"Star Trek is too intellectual for mainstream audiences, and has become too mainstream for intellectual audiences."

To which The_Tom replied:

"Oy! Oy! Arrrgh!

20 million people would watch TNG. They were mainly intellectual people. Today they watch other series. 4 million people generally watch Voyager. Most of them also watched TNG, and are often dissatisfied that the overall level of quality and intellectuality have declined. The 16 million who don't watch Voyager are also fairly intellectual, but they're not avoiding Voyager because it makes more continuity errors than TNG (it probably doesn't significantly differ). Branding people who care about 35-year-old lines of dialogue more than holistic quality as "intellectual" and rejecting everyone else is an arrogant and stupid assertation."

Wow. Totally offbase interpretation or what? *ahem* I did not anywhere in my post say that continuity nuts were intellectuals or that the rest of the audience wasn't. Don't be dense. I was referring to the reason NBC rejected "The Cage" way back when, and what came from that -- a series that dealt with many serious issues in a safe fantasy environment. Star Trek's core audience back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s were engineers, college students, and others who fell under the general blanket term "intellectual". These were/are people who enjoy a good story, yes... but one that has the critical C� factor crobato mentioned above. When the stories get dumbed down (and while continuity is part of this, it is a small part), that audience drifts away. Get it now?

And then...:

"Being mainstream and being intellectual are not mutually exclusive. TNG was generally both; Voyager was generally neither. Indeed, I'd speculate that TNG was mainstream because it was intellectual --"

Forgive me. I should have elaborated. By "mainstream" in this context, I meant the "lowest common denominator" among the viewership -- e.g., those people who wrote in after seeing "The Jem'Hadar" wondering what the Enterprise was doing there [the Odyssey], where was Picard, and wasn't the Enterprise destroyed in that last movie I went to see...? People who can watch and enjoy a show they might never have tuned in to before and might never tune in to again, who can just let the story wash over them without once engaging their minds.

"Enterprise needs to be interesting and captivating. I want that first. I want continuity too, but that shouldn't be the priority."

My point is that it also shouldn't be ignored where inconvenient. Why is it asking too much to suggest the writers write within the "guidelines" Trek history has created? That would be like me writing about the Revolutionary War and saying Norman Schwartzkopf would be a more dramatic general than George Washington. Maybe, but that ain't the way it happened. Why is established Trek history less valid? Shall we just declare the entire Original Series "apocryphal" so as to avoid any future tedious continuity sticking points? Or if not, then where do YOU suggest the line be drawn? Okay, and why is your opinion more or less "right" than mine about where the line is to be drawn? Or Bernd's? Or Braga's?

Believe it or not, it IS possible to tell enthralling, dynamic, dramatic stories without rewriting Trek history. We had lots of Orion pirates and smugglers back then -- and they were enough of a threat that Our Heroes were still wary of them in TOS... We have the proud warrior race that was the pre-Federation Andorians. Wonder what their reaction to offworlders was... See? We don't need Klingons to bring conflict into the setting, and we don't need the familiarity of the Klingons to make the show engaging. Pointy-eared Vulcans, blue Andorians with white hair and antennae, pig-nosed Tellarites, green Orion slave women... Who needs anachronistic turtle-heads?

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

Firstly, thanks for the clarificaition on the mainstream vs. lowest common denominator. AFAIK, there was pressure to make Voyager more LCD-friendly from on high as the ratings slipped but Berman held out commendably to prevent the show from slipping too deeply in wrestling territory. Every indication from the multitude of End-of-Voyager interviews seems to point at the producers acknowleging Voyager slipped a bit in this department and efforts would be made to return to Gene's vision anew, which is by definition non-LCD. Now, as it's been often pointed out, they said the very same thing about all the other series, but this time there's a gun to their heads. Trek is in a "must-win" position for the first time in a while, and a lot of Paramount cash is riding on getting back numbers. Rather than going LCD and cashing in, so far it looks like the suits want the show to aim for the lost TNG-ers. If this fails initially, might Berman get pressured to crank up the sex & violence and do whatever is neccessary to get warm bodies in front of televisions? I hope not.

Voyager had no significant differences in its "criminal record" for breaking TOS continuity than TNG or DS9. Big TNG episodes could pull 20 million people, big Voyagers are lucky to get 6. I just can't agree with the sentiment that people stopped watching because intra-series continuity was going out the window.
15 million people did not tune out because Ronald D Moore, perhaps the most openly pro-TOS writer in Trek, wrote a line in "Relics" that implied Kirk was alive at the time of Scotty's disappearance and then wrote a scene in Generations that proved otherwise. 15 million people did not tune out because Janeway and co. arrived in 1996 LA and didn't see evidence of the Eugenics Wars. In order to consistently notice more than one or two of such gaffes, most people would have to own a Chronology or Encyclopedia. I doubt 15 million people own one of these and run upstairs to check that nothing was inadvertently changed after every episode, and after checking their running tally see a swing for the worse decide to watch B5 instead.

It's really quite simple. Somewhere between "Caretaker" and the end of Voyager's second season, a lot of people said "Y'know what, this stuff isn't that interesting. I'd rather watch something else." And they did, and trickled away to arguably better series that probably had nothing to do with science fiction, by crobato's self-imposed definition or by anyone else's. Perhaps it was repetitive storylines, perhaps it was poor writing/acting/etc., perhaps it was boredom with Trek, perhaps it was a combination of these things that did it. But whatever it was, Trek lost a large body of people who were great guys (and girls) who loved Roddenberry's vision just as much as we do. I know a lot of them. I think they deserve another good Star Trek show. If Enterprise can fit that bill, then good. If it's shit, let's find fault in it. But the sort of pre-judging of the show that a small minority of the fans are doing right now is utterly destroying the credibility of the net as a place where Trek can be intelligently discussed.

quote:

---

What is said in "Tin Man" then... I thought Data or was it Riker mentioned Garousda and the USS Adelphi?? So it was a Federation starship that made First Contact - not something pre-Fed.

---

The Garousda are not the Klingons.

And besides, if Tam Elbrun was overseeing First Contact with the Klingons, wouldn't he be ... oh, I don't know ... a LOT older?

Also, Riker (Riker & Geordi were speaking of the incident) lost two friends from his class at the Academy in the incident -- apparently, about 40 people died. A board of inquiry found Captain Darsen at fault, but a lot of people -- Riker included -- blame Elbrun.

Speaking of which, I grew up in Adelphi.

I believe that in the episode "First Contact", Picard mentions a disasterous First Contact with the Klingons.

However, no one has ever given a date for this disasterous conflict. And while certain people would like to infer the date of that contact, the fact of the matter is, they're grasping at straws.

Consider: Enterprise delivers this rogue Klingon back to the Empire. Disasterous conflict. However, because the soon-to-be Federation and the Klingon Empire are still small, and growing in size, it is not until their borders reach that you have the "continuous" hostilities mentioned by McCoy in a TOS episode.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

I watch ed the original TOS on a black and white set.

I wrote some manuals back in the 80's partly to explain/correct perceived continuity problems - so I guess one could say I have a love of continuity.
And until today, I never realized that in the Voyager episode in contemporary time California, there should have been nuclear devastation and mutants. I missed it completely - because I was interested in the story.

Is that possible? It is for me. How about you crobato?

I love Star Trek. I think it peaked in 1967 insofar as writing goes. But I still enjoy its later avatars.

I also:
- Have a life
- Do not live in my parent's basement
- Kiss girls

I think the ability to enjoy a show without getting kinked about minor discrepencies has some correlation with the above 3 qualities (which I refer to as Shatner's 3 Laws of Idiotics).

Or, put more succinctly: Get a Life.

Peregrinus/JeffK - rock on. I have faith that (should the writing in the new series be up to snuff)- you two will enjoy the series. Y'know, like judge it on its own merits.

PS: While I do agree with crobato insofar that Sci-Fi is (usually) a measure of how technology affects society - I believe a better definition would be how "as-yet unlikely but possible or probable events" will affect society. You see crobato, one of the finest sci-fi movies ever made was "Soylent Green" - which did not center on any new technology - but on a rather distateful (no pun intended), and unlikey - yet possible event could change it. And yes, you are certainly correct in that consistency in TECHNOLOGY is what seps fantasy from sci-fi. Larry Niven touched on this. If I can make my enemy vanish in a puff of smoke sans visible weaponry, I may be using technology (ray gun), or psi-powers - but so long as I have the same ability in next weeks episode - and it obeys INTERNALLY self-consistent laws, it is not magic. However, Every sci-fi novel and television series has had its continuity flaws. To alter something you said - what matters is intent - not written rules. If they have to bend continuity in order to make the story more interesting - I can see it.

And it provides grist for the mill. Think of all the work the nit-pickers will have, as they try to solve each paradox!

As for Buffy, maybe I'm lacking the genre competence, maybe I'm just too old to enjoy how teenies fight against the evil. But even if I put my basic reservations aside I just can't see what's so exciting about having the same type of story with a predictable course of events every week. I call that trivial.

Now, for Jeff's position... You keep saying there's nothing definitive, but if you take the time-frame given by McCoy in TOS and by Spock in Star Trek VI, and combine that with the history of Fed/Klingon relations as spoken by McCoy in TOS, Spock in Star Trek VI, and Picard in TNG, you end up with a pretty complete picture.

And if none of that was good enough for you, then what do YOU say was going on between Earth/Fed and the Klingons during that century between the Enterprise pilot and the clear establishment of hostilities c.2220?

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

But again ... McCoy wasn't speaking of the First Contact, was he?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.