Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Star Trek 2000 - Live Long and Fester?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Savar: [QB] <sighs again> it's knickers in a TWIST.... oh well... More clarification of my opinions seem to be in order. First and foremost, I never claimed that DS9 is a COPY of B5, only that the idea popped into Rick Berman's vacant skull only after he got hold of the synopsis for the show. You won't catch me making comparisons between these shows. Secondly, I did not intend to suggest that Star Trek could only be successful if it were about a Starship Enterprise and crew, only that the starship-based exploration theme works best FOR ME. This was only an OPINION. Other venues would work equally well if such creations could benefit from consistently great writing and producers who cared about the fans. Is everyone really so indifferent towards Brannon Braga's claim that trek fans have "too much time on their f***ing hands"? He's talking about all of us, you know. Simri, I would agree with your intimation that many Trek fans place Gene Roddenberry on a pedestal higher than he deserved. The "Great Bird" was not so great in many capacities and was as profit-minded as anyone in the business. After all, Spock's IDIC-pin thing in TOS was Gene's haphazard attempt at Trek merchandising. Fascinating point about Cochrane, but neither Berman nor Braga are sharp enough to use Cochrane as a metaphor for Roddenberry. I doubt either knows what a metaphor is... In actual fact, Braga didn't know anything about Cochrane to begin with and considered making the character Picard's LOVE INTEREST until he was told who Cochrane was... Trek can certainly continue without Gene, but not without the proper care. It takes talent, and a good measure of vision to create a new series, talent which I believe is a bit lacking in the current production staff. Concerning Voyager's ratings and UPN, point well taken. I would agree that the numbers must be skewed somewhat by the fact that Voyager is not syndicated. Yet this goes to one of my points in a roundabout way. Paramount used Star Trek to jump start their fledgling network, instead of giving the show its due by allowing it to be syndicated like it's predecessors. And then there is the nastiness that the parent company, Viacom, likes to perpetrate against harmless, non-profit, personal web pages that are in any way Trek related. The people in charge these days are not very fan-friendly. Lastly, I would like to apologise to Fabrux for apparently insulting him YET AGAIN. It was not my intention to suggest that your opinion at age 15 is any less valid than mine at age 143 (seems like that long, anyway) or that you are any less a fan. I would be happy to watch Star Trek in any form for as long as its around so long as it is under the creative control of someone truly creative and insightful. Remember, I'm not bashing DS9 or Voyager. I like both shows. I merely stated that each series seems to be getting farther and farther away from what I believe made Trek successful. Here are the facts: For a number of debatable reasons, Trek has lost a lot of its audience. Fewer viewers mean fewer profits. Fewer profits mean less network support for the show. Pass this point and it means another letter-writing campaign. I DON'T want to see this happen. Cancellation of any Trek series could mean a death-knell to the legacy. In short, my beef is with the producers. I don't trust them. I don't like them. I love Star Trek, however, and always will. Thanks everone for the kind welcome. I am really looking forward to being a member of such a superb forum. [/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