Biggest news: Romulans are confirmed for early Season 2.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
"The continuity is airtight" So noone sees them or hears them. Not to strange considering TOS wanted us to believe an entire war was fought and peace treaties made without ever seeing or hearing eachother. I really wonder though if the sneaky Vulcans honestly don't know the Romulans are their dissident brothers.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
TPTB have certainly set the show up with sufficient material to last quite a long time, if they play their cards right... we've got the Vulcan-Andorian conflict, the Temporal War, the upcoming foundation of the Federation, and now the Romulans to keep 'm busy. Nice to see ENT is starting to shape up.
quote:"We've been very careful. The continuity is airtight. Believe me. We know. We know."
*searches for appropriate smiley to insert*
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
I don't think hearing the Romulans was ever a problem.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Biggest news: Romulans are confirmed for early Season 2.
I just hope they're not flying D'Deridex class warbirds because the VFX department didn't have time to make a new ship.
quote:Capt. Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) will get his "space legs.
Does this mean that he will stop getting beaten up by every alien he meets?
quote:"We have some big surprises in store for T'Pol. Some very surprising character revelations for T'Pol."
Translation: Either she gets totally naked, or she goes through Pon Farr. Or perhaps she even (say it isn't so) actually gets some semblance of better writing for her character.
quote:"One of the things we realized early on, when we were doing this series, was that there was a chance to make the Vulcans really interesting again...
Especially since the end of DS9, they've been basically characterized as high-and-mighty jerks, especially on Enterprise.
Note: My sarcastic, bullheaded comments are not to be taken as an attack on the show. They're just my sarcastic, bullheaded opinions. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:I don't think hearing the Romulans was ever a problem.
I wonder. What if Hoshi finds out Romulan language is eerily similar to a certain Vulcan dialect?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
While I suppose it's possible that either "Vulcan" or "Romulan" have taken the Latin to Italian route, and thus would remain obviously related to some distant tongue, it seems unlikely that both would. Of course, Hoshi is supposed to be a linguistic genius, and could probably do difficult things like figuring out ancient Saxon via English. But would she have any idea what language most Vulcans were speaking 2000 years ago? Though it might be breaking a timeworn Trek convention, there's no reason to assume that Vulcan was linguistically unified pre-Surak, and I doubt she'd have an easy time gaining access to linguistic data, especially if the Vulcans are keeping the Unpleasent Schism a secret.
Perfect question for Frank: do you suppose, hypothetically, that a totally alien observer would be able to figure out that Latin and Xhosa were spoken by members of the same species?
Er...of course, turning this into a real world question has some serious problems, seeing as how real aliens are unlikely to have a method for vocalizing that's anything like what we have, and thus you could probably pretty quickly tell that sound X can only be created by humans, and sound Y by the !Krit.
So, uh, what was the question?
Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
I see it now. Season 2 has ended, and we never saw the Romulans. Someone asks Braga why. He e-mails a freeze frame of episode 2.xx, with a circle around a small white a dot in the background and the text: "That's a Romulan vessel luring out there." Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Reading that 'interview' conjured up the crap stories we used to get before the start of each Voyager season. "Oh we are going to do more with such and such a character this year" - If they fucking well did the season well, then every character should have nice and equal episodes. DS9 season 1 was perfect. We got at least one strong episode for each character, a few silly episodes, a few 'group' episodes and a few 'double-up' episodes. PLUS we got the debuts of some FABULOUS recurring characters.
Oh, sorry DS9 and those who created it have long gone.
*Sigh*
Andrew
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Sing it Andrew! You're right... DS9 really set a nice groundwork with its first season. We got characters like Garak, Dukat, Opaka.. They really put something in there to be able to bring back every now and again.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Someday I hope to save up enough money to travel to this land where DS9's first season wasn't the slow and plodding affair with occasional glimmers of genius it was here.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
This from someone who doesn't like B5 Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure I see what that has to do with it, but, I've seen every episode of B5 twice. Who says I don't like it?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
You're constantly complaining about the dialogue... Gives me the impression that you're not too fond of it. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
What the? There was a hiccup in time... Damned Manheim effect.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
My relationship with Babylon 5 is complicated and not really all that interesting. Let's just say that my feelings are in the middle of the road somewhere.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
My feelings are more towards the "it was great" end of the road, but I still think that great chunks of the dialogue were shit. Since when did "criticism" = hatred?
quote: Oh, sorry DS9 and those who created it have long gone.
What? They died? Were they eaten alive for producing Meridian (an episode that is almost as bad as Threshold, but "allowed" by the fans because it didn't ignore some silly rule in the show)?
Or alternatively, is one half of the two people who created it still working on Enterprise?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Gosh, steady on, you're verging towards heresy - you almost criticised Enterprise! And we all know that anyone who doesn't like the show unconditionally is a rabid Berman and Braga hater who's obsessed with continuity. Add to that the lack of total uncompromising hatred towards THAT OTHER SHOW, and you're gonna get a witchfinder sicced on you. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
As much as I do admire Lee's "Some people actually dislike Enterprise for reasons other than the stupid" despite his total wrongness in the matter, I'm confused here as to who he is speaking to.
Posted by Edipissed Wrecks (Member # 510) on :
i loved the first season of DS9. i didn't find it to be plodding at all. oh well.
Posted by CaptainMike: Director's Edition (Member # 709) on :
they havent died, but the bulk of the creative personnel that people consider to have made DS9 good have been purged from creating the newer versions of Trek (Ira Behr bowed out on his own, to other projects, Ron Moore tried Voyager and got the shaft from the Braga boy, Sternbach is being left out of the art stuff post-Voyager, and Probert was left out after his TNG creations, etc,etc,etc...) Im sure there are a few more examples of longtime Trek staffers from the TNG and Ds9 eras who either decided to leave or were not asked to bring themselves over to VGR, Nemesis or Enterprise after DS9 ended. Some of it is simply moving on, but some of it seems to have been deliberate on the part of The Man and The Boy in their quest to remake Trek in a slightly different image than the one envisioned by the TNG and DS9 creators.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Um, bullshit?
People don't get "purged" from Trek. They perform their job on a year by year basis, and if both sides wish to continue on after each year, they do. Deep Space Nine ended. The writing staff, with the exception of Moore, moved on to do something different. (Yes, believe it or not, not everyone wants to do Star Trek until the end of time.) There isn't an insiduous plot to neuter people who don't lick Berman's ass. It's a job, and just like any other there's turnover, most of which is voluntary.
And, FWIW, Enterprise's Art Department was filled essentially from those people who had put in their time on Deep Space Nine and the movies. Much of Voyager's Art Department, including Sternbach and Richard James, was let go. That's just the way it was. Rick S. is by all accounts a great guy and people here certainly are fans of his work. But when people try to read office politics into the composition of a credits list based entirely on fanboy scuttlebut, I think we are going a bit too far.
Posted by CaptainMike: Director's Edition (Member # 709) on :
Maybe I am reading too much into the other writing staff changeovers... i know that many writers leave of their own accord, after short tenures, constantly over the past 35+ years, but having read a lot of behind the scenes stuff lately, including the entire Ron Moore/Voyager story.. it seems like something very fishy was there.. and i believe that Trek would be better if Braga hadnt chosen to exclude Moore to the point he did, and i think that Trek would be better if some of the people who were heavily involved with DS9 and TNG were still with it instead of the people who were heavily involved with Voyager were still with it. And i think that Probert is a little upset over the way he was distanced from the show, way back when, and, design-wise, the shows would benefit from his influence (and Sternbach's) more than it would for some of the new stuff that is occurring.
paying for internet at Kinko's.. must sign off...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Probert, IMHO, has struck me as an exception.
The last interview he gave was disgustingly unprofessional, in which he ripped into both TPTB and the Art Department for apparently not knowing what "real" science fiction design should look like. According to him, Sternbach et al were sheep and disgraces to Roddenberry for following commands from TPTB and, among other things, putting landing legs on Voyager.
Let's be frank. A lot of Probert's stuff from the first season did look a bit shit. Probert's slammed Berman as someone who didn't meet his exacting standards as someone qualified to "know sci-fi" and was thus out of line when he told Probert what to include in his design work and to avoid making stuff look "uncool." I think it's totally within the role of the executive producer to provide the layman's eye on all the tech stuff, and let's be frank, the buck stopped at Berman's desk, not in the Art Department.
Sternbach has repeatedly stated, even once outside the Trek fold and no longer subject to any alleged retribution from on high, that he felt tremendous freedom as a tech guy to make his ships the way he wanted under Berman so long as the basic look of things met the producer's approval. I'll take his word over that of the stereotypical disgruntled ex-employee any day.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I tend to agree here. Probert's work wasn't THAT great. The Enterprise-D never rates very highly in "fans favourite ship" charts (although most people grew to love it by simply virtue that they watched it for seven years). The vertical Romulan Warbird would have looked shit too.
quote: some of it seems to have been deliberate on the part of The Man and The Boy in their quest to remake Trek in a slightly different image than the one envisioned by the TNG and DS9 creators.
Although this is getting tiring, let's try again. The version of Trek thought at the beginning of TNG involved ripping off old TOS episodes, stupid plots, babbling androids, contradction upon contradiction, and general rubbishness. Since when has season one of TNG ever been rated higher than any of the others (apart from maybe season 2).
And the same with DS9. Season 1 of that doesn't tend to rate high. Both those shows changed from what their creators had imagined. Partly because in TNGs case, most of the creators left.
And (again), Rick Berman has been in charge of Trek since about 1989. How can he only now be remaking it into a different image? He did that years ago, by ignoring Gene over conflict, showing human's being perfect evolved beings, and others.
One final thing on the staff firing/leaving thing. When DS9 finished, would it have really been reasonably to give all the people working on that jobs elsewhere in the franchise? Enterprise was still 3 years away, as was Nemesis. You couldn't just dump all those people onto Voyager. They'd have had staff for two shows working on one show. It would have not been feasable.
Posted by CaptainMike: Director's Edition (Member # 709) on :
when i think Probert though i dont think of the curvy TNG season 1 stuff, i usually think of the last stages of the enterprise refit.. he took the phase 2 ship and made it into a real marvel, and the style adapted for the reliant. i miss his design work of the TMP-TWOK era
plus he was given the enviable task of designing a boring ship.. basically, gene wanted stately, not streamlined, and with conference rooms in every hallway so that the cast could frequently stop and discuss their feelings about going around the next corner.
and a lot of GCS fans will probably jump all over the anti-Galaxy sentiments.. i remember what happened when i wrote a short essay about the ineffectiveness of the galaxy explorer program....
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The thing is, when Probert left the show, he wasn't designing the refit Ent and building up the "look" that would become to be associated with Nicholas Meyer 1982 Trek. He was designing curvy and sanitary TNG season 1 stuff and building up the "look" that would come to be associated with Gene Roddenberry 1987 Trek. Indeed, he left the show in a huff when pressure came from Berman (with little opposition from Roddenberry, it should be noted, at a time when Gene was still very much in charge) to curb the whimsy because not everyone was super pleased with that curvy and sanitary look.
I think it's a fair enough to say that the work that Probert felt was unjustly attacked is exactly the stuff most people have never become particularly endeared-to, namely dustbuster phasers and starships that, while adhering to Gene's alleged cardinal laws of nacelle alignment, looked pretty meh.
Again, I've always seen Trek production design as only 20% engineering and 80% art, so this is all entirely subjective. I'm just saying that personally I've on the whole preferred a lot of the design work since Berman moved into the driver's seat.
(Aside: I do like the Galaxy, and when people take potshots at it it always ticks me off, but I can't say it was love at sight so much as an acquired love after becoming attached to it over eight years.) Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm not sure how much credit to give Probert for the Enterprise refit. The main visual differences (larger saucer, flat engines and swept back pylons) were all done by Jeffries, were they?
I'm not trying to slag off Probert here, as I do like the GCS (although Tom kind of confirms me feelings about it...we love it because it was "The ship" for 8 years), and I think the Romulan Warbird looks really cool, but since Berman started to stamp his own design aethetic on the show, a lot of the visual things that date seasons 1 and 2 far more than 3 started to go. The uniforms, the phasers were much improved, and they managed to improve the bridge a considerable amount too.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Berman's been there from the start. The main argument you could probably have against him is that - he's been there too long... he's just pumping out Trek so he doesn't HAVE to move on.
Michael Piller, Jeri Taylor, Ira Behr, Ron Moore all seem to have been put between a rock and a hard-place when it came to their leaving (except for Behr second time for leaving which was naturally at the end of the series). Branon Braga is the constant here. Did he push out Piller Taylor and Moore?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Did Pillar write for DS9 after it's second season? And did he write for Voyagare after it's first.
In any case, I think he left early enough that Braga wouldn't have anywhere near the influence necessary to get rid of him, especially since that at that time he and Moore were bossom buddies.
And Pillar did come back to write Insurection didn't he? And we all know how well that went down.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Saying Braga "pushed out" Taylor and Piller is, well, so completely untrue that I think there's a general statement to made about the ills of Trek fandom here. I just won't make it.
Posted by Red Ultra CaptainMike Pym (Member # 709) on :
my secret theory is that Jeri Taylor retired because, one morning, she woke up and realized she was a hack. i wish...
i hope she knows.. everyone else knows it.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Saying Braga "pushed out" Taylor and Piller is, well, so completely untrue that I think there's a general statement to made about the ills of Trek fandom here. I just won't make it.
The_Tom, I think you have a problem when you read a QUESTION as a STATEMENT. Changing the context of a message within one post... and you had the gall to refer to my question when talking about the ills of Trek fandom! Gah!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I think the very fact that people sanely come up with suppositions like that reflects rather poorly on the whole online fanbase.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yes, but you're one of the main offenders when it comes to defending Enterprise from any sort of criticism (no matter its validity) whatsoever. And since Enterprise is now the only game in town, Trek-wise (apart from a movie that everyone will have seen in six months' time, which may be the last of its kind), its fate is inextricably linked with that of Brannon Braga. In much the same way as anyone who finds fault with Enterprise is immediately labelled a Braga-hater by you and your ilk, you now find yourself compelled to defend Braga no matter what. Why, we're even seeing creeping Voyager-revisionism popping up here and there.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'd refute that. The main problem that Tom and others (incuding me) isn't that the criticisms are about Enterprise, it's the fact that they are about Braga and Berman. Criticising them for current Trek incarnations without acknowledging that Berman at least is also responsible largely for TNG, which everyone loves, as well as DS9. They aren't attacks against the plot of episodes, or the characters, or the writing. They are attacks against two people, one of whom seems to get it in the neck only because of
a/ an argument with Ron Moore (the fans favourite), and b/ a statement about continuity that is usually taken wildly out of context.
Criticism of things Braga has actually done (like writing "Threshold") is fine, but when you get to the point of people suggesting shadowy conspicies by him in order to take over the world, something is wrong. Every comment against Enterprise seems to come with a nasty piece of cynacism.
Case in point, Andrew's first post in this thread, where he made the perfectly valid point that some parts were earily similar to what's been said at the start of every other Trek season: "We're going to be exploring this character". But it then ended with that potshot at TPTB for (apparently) getting rid of all the DS9 staff, which was just unecessary. Captain Mike made a comment about "purging" the DS9 staff, which was also slightly ludicrous.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
It works both ways, Vogon Poet. How many times haven't the people who defend Enterprise, et al, been labeled as being unobjective and sucking up (or taking it anally from) Berman and Braga? Everyone here who likes Enterprise has offered criticism of Enterprise at various times through the first season. Insisting that "our ilk" resorts to nothing more than rabid protectionism of those in charge is misleading and grossly inaccurate.
Those defending Enterprise have tended to be on the aggressive side, but that's a natural response to what many times is just pointless carping for the sheer joy of stirring trouble. How many posts haven't began, ended, or simply consisted of "Enterprise is just B&B creating Trek in their own image," "This is another step to making TOS noncanon," or "Enterprise is noncanon." All of those statements are made without bothering to examine the issues objectively, and consequentally the realities have to be presented time and time again. How many times don't we need to reminded that Ron Moore wrote some stinker episodes, that Michael Piller gave us Insurrection, and that many of Voyager's best episodes were written by Brannon Braga?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I for one am not into B&B-Bashing. However, many of the problems I have with Enterprise are about the very concept and execution of the show, and the two gentlemen in question have had a lot to do with that (even though it's not just them, and they have done good things on occasion). It becomes very difficult to discuss such general problems - as opposed to specific ones like "the plot of episodes, or the characters, or the writing" - without B&B cropping up occasionally, no matter how anyone tries to avoid it.
They are the producers, and are the people most credited with the direction a show takes. How much criticism of B5 ultimately gets aimed at JMS? Quite a lot, although his writing of many of the scripts for that show (and the crummy dialogue that often resulted, for instance) didn't help in that case.
Personally, I don't care anymore. There was a time when criticism was acceptable round here, but now instead we have the attitude that it's "just pointless carping for the sheer joy of stirring trouble." Why, I've even seen the ultimate cop-out be put forth - "if you don't like it, don't watch it." Well, I haven't been: Enterprise is no longer a show I go out of my way to watch. I think it is an inferior product, and it has raised my estimation of DS9 (I'm on record as not being one of DS9's bigger fans) considerably.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, but who takes credit for the entire Babylon 5 universe, good or bad? Who is universally recognized as its creator, producer, muse type? It isn't Harlan Ellison.
I suspect I fall into the "please Misters B, force your terrible culture-destroying toxins down my virign throat" camp, but I'd be interested in a post from you, Lee, explaining why you don't like the show. This is partially because I am interested in your opinions in general, and partially because I can trust you, and people like you, to say "element X is defective for reason Y," and so on, rather than "Which Enterprise episode did you fall asleep during?" and "Time for Archer to get a talking dog?" Topics which I have not made up.
But I've yet to see it. At the same time, I recognize that I've yet to see a post really outlining what someone thinks is good about the show. So, I issue a challenge. I, as someone who has generally been quite satisfied with Enterprise, am going to sit through some repeats and make a list of things I like, if someone who on the whole is unsatisfied will do the same with things they don't like. Then, at the end, we can compare and contrast.
And fight to the death with sharpened sticks.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Oh, joy, the old standby excuse about acceptable debate not being accepted here. I guess we'll soon be resorting to calling each other Nazis and Communists next, eh?
There is a lot of debating going on about Enterprise, and fortunately a good portion of it is being conducted by reasonable, rational, and objective people. These are people who can cite fault with none of the series adhering to a consistent travel time scale rather than the people crucifying Enterprise for doing it while giving the other series writers a free pass.
On the other hand, there is a lot of pointless carping going on. As much as you might find it being dismissive on my part, it's the reality. Some people have overlooked facts in order to bash Berman, Braga, Enterprise, Voyager, what have you. A recent example is joke Braga made in an interview that riled some people up because they neglected to read closely enough that it was a joke. Not to mention, that there are posters who cannot help but make snide remarks just for the sole purpose of reminding us that they hate whatever or whoever.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: Oh, joy, the old standby excuse about acceptable debate not being accepted here.
Which is exactly the case. You seem to be going to a lot of trouble to deny my right to not like this TV show. Why, I could take this personally. I might even have to trot out my old standby line that some of my critics are sad overweight losers who, without their precious TV show, would have to actually face up to real life. Now, that wouldn't be very nice, would it? Because someone whose opinion I care about might take offense at it.
quote:There is a lot of debating going on about Enterprise, and fortunately a good portion of it is being conducted by reasonable, rational, and objective people.
Or "the people who agree with you" for short.
quote:These are people who can cite fault with none of the series adhering to a consistent travel time scale rather than the people crucifying Enterprise for doing it while giving the other series writers a free pass.
So we can't attack such errors on Enterprise without acknowledging all previous such errors on other shows? Well, we attacked them at the time, when they were new, nonetheless.
quote:On the other hand, there is a lot of pointless carping going on. As much as you might find it being dismissive on my part, it's the reality. Some people have overlooked facts in order to bash Berman, Braga, Enterprise, Voyager, what have you.
I don't like the show. I say so. You like the show, so you dismiss my opinion as "pointless carping." And what's this? Nice little list there - "Berman, Braga, Enterprise, Voyager." These are all topics where criticism is now verboten? We're not allowed to criticise the show not only for the producers, but for the shows neither?
quote:Not to mention, that there are posters who cannot help but make snide remarks just for the sole purpose of reminding us that they hate whatever or whoever.
Reality check, Siggy, EVERYONE here does that. But is it not allowed where the things you like are concerned?
As for Simon's challenge, I'm interested. But any opinion I state will be endlessly deconstructed word by word in search of semantic error (which will then undermine my whole argument, apparently), and I'm not sure I can be bothered. Even this little contretemps is getting a little tedious.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think you're being a little unfair to Siegfried, who isn't necessarily talking about this particular discussion.
I mean, yes, there are scary fanboys, and scary anti-fanboys, and so on and so on. But, I mean, when it comes to our core group, as it were, I don't get those vibes from anyone who posts about Enterprise, for or against. I think those of us who like the show have perhaps had our defenses stuck in a permanent on position by the over-reaction from certain quarters. So when Siegfried talks about zealous anti-Bermanites, he isn't suggesting that Berman is off limits for criticism, but rather those few who use the name like a curse word, and think that's more than enough to prove any point.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I'll just point out that my commentary had absolutely dick all to do with the merits or lack thereof to be found in Enterprise or Voyager or Mission: Impossible 2. Call them good, great, shit, I don't care.
What does tick me off is when alleged commentators get personally abusive and accuse individual producers of being just-plain-bad-people. That's, well, in grannyspeak, bad manners. And at the risk of being labeled an B&B cocksucker, I think there's little room for any kind of personal criticism of anybody involved in Trek given the fact that nobody here is remotely qualified to pass judgement on their character.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Why, I could take this personally. I might even have to trot out my old standby line that some of my critics are sad overweight losers who, without their precious TV show, would have to actually face up to real life.
Excuse me? Would you mind telling me how making a personal attack on my weight has anything at all to do with this?
quote:Or "the people who agree with you" for short.
No, people who honestly do not like Enterprise for whatever reason and who can frame their concerns in a civil discussion without the need for attacking someone's weight.
quote:Well, we attacked them at the time, when they were new, nonetheless.
Even if that is the case, it is unfair to insinuate that this is a phenomenom unique only to Enterprise. Yeah, the writers and producers are being lazy and unrealistic in terms of the universe in which the show is set, but it's an unfortunate condition that has been shared by everything labeled as Star Trek.
quote:I don't like the show. I say so. You like the show, so you dismiss my opinion as "pointless carping." And what's this? Nice little list there - "Berman, Braga, Enterprise, Voyager." These are all topics where criticism is now verboten? We're not allowed to criticise the show not only for the producers, but for the shows neither?
Please reread what I have written. I have said driveby postings consisting of nothing more that "B&B are raping Roddenberry's cremation urn" are the pointless carping. I know you have a dislike for the plots and creativity of the show. You have expressed that before in ways that make me respect your opinion. Nothing is a forbidden topic in Star Trek, it's just annoying when one person (and it doesn't matter if it's Braga's oral buddy or the guy urinating in his coffee pot) feels that short "Entepise sux" post is sufficient or helpful for a discussion.
quote:Reality check, Siggy, EVERYONE here does that. But is it not allowed where the things you like are concerned?
So, because everyone else is doing it that's okay? No, it isn't. Yeah, I have done that in the past, but it is something that I'm doing my damnest to stop. I don't care if you like what I do, but I will and do respect everyone's opinion if they attempt to make me understand his or her perspective.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm with Simon here. I haven't been coming to this forum, mainly because I haven't wanted to be spoiled about the show. When I have though, the criticisms have in the large majority of cases been about the tinniest, minutest silly little details that did get ignored on other Trek shows. And those criticisms tend to come with snide little comments too. When people start posting that they want the Daedalus class to appear and run rings around Enterprise (the ship), then it's hard to take them seriously. I mean, the Daedalus-class? You couldn't come up with a more ugly ship design if you got the Normay-class and shot it with ugly torpedoes.
I'd just...like to see some actual genuine criticism of the show. Not of the "I want it to run 3 seasons and then the ship to blow up or the Romulans to start a war with the explosions and stuff!" variety. Actual criticisms. Are the characters not being developed enough? Are they not taking enough advantage of the 22nd century setting? Are they handling the temporal cold war well? Are you waiting for Dean Stockwell to have a cameo? Stuff like that.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I could give a shit who's overweight or not. I'm overweight if it comes down to it. I was being generic. Try not to be so thin-skinned, or big-boned, or glandular. . . 8)
So you want genuine criticism? That's actually quite hard to do. It's hard to accuse them of failing to develop characters when we're only one-seventh of the way through the show's run. You could accuse any of the shows of that. Even the holy of holies, DS9 - can anyone really say that Jake Sisko ever really worked as well as some of the other characters in that one?
Now, I will get round to posting my views on Enterprise, but I have to write them first. And I stand by anyone's right to carp at the show, just as we carped at Voyager before it, and just as we carped at Berman and Braga when they were making that show. I've never viewed anyone who defended Enterprise as sucking up to B&B, so please do me (and others like me) a favour and stop instinctively accusing anyone who attacks Enterprise of antiBragaism. Because it DOES happen. All the time. And I'm sick of it, and it's actually prevented me from wanting to critique the show because I know that it'll just happen again.
Posted by Red Magnus Pymster (Member # 239) on :
"Are you waiting for Dean Stockwell to have a cameo?"
Oh yeah. Whoo...
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Gee, in a debate on Star Trek, my being fat has been dragged into it for the sole purpose of a personal attack, and I'm being too sensitive about it? Thanks, I just feel oh so wonderful now.
Even with there being only a couple dozen episodes of Enterprise in existence, it is still quite possible to form an adequate critique. Character development, character motivations, directing, writing, series direction, and plotlines have all been far from perfect. We can't use this to predict that the entire series will be a disaster, but we can look at where the show is failing and and where the show is succeeding.
Posted by Red Magnus Pymster (Member # 239) on :
But are there undue criticisms against Enterprise that the other series, while certainly not unexhibiting these areas, go unscathed?
With the longevity of the Franchise, the "criticisms" become more vehement, personal and outrageous. From what I gather, Enterprise raped all your Grandmas and gave the body to the Producers to dispose of. And then they raped it too.
Far too many of the adjutant arrows used to shoot Enterprise down seem to spawn from a quiver based on the archer's personal belief of what Star Trek should be. With 36 years of it in the bag, each fan has their own opinion of what it should be. So they cut it down, because it's not one hour descriptions of each ship class in Starfleet.
Enterprise is good TV. Better than "Who Wants to Eat the Rotting Carcass of a Millionaire?" and "E!'s Celebrity Murder!", and better than most other programs on UPN. Not the best, but it doesn't suck.
Is it good Star Trek? Unfortunately, this seems to be a personal decision, and everyone seems to have such ingrained paradigms that this will never adequately be ansered to sufficision.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
The attacks against one another's character stop. Now.
Siegfried, I don't think Lee said that as a personal attack. Frankly, I don't think anyone here really cares about the weight of any of the others. It is a nonissue.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Y'know, if you replace "*end of sentence*. Now" with "*end of sentence*. Period" then Charles is Beast Machines Cheetor. Scary.
He's right though. Besides, you're all fatter than me. Ha! I laugh through my nose at you.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm not fatter than you.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I bet you are.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Okay, Charles, I'm dropping it.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote: PLUS we got the debuts of some FABULOUS recurring characters.
I really just imagine you saying FABULOUS with a heavy gay lisp.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes. He also said that Kai Opaka was interesting, but I let that slide in the interests of universal harmony.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)