Which in your opinion do you think would be a bigger help in getting ratings up?
A. Getting away from UPN and switching to FOX or something.
B. Better management, getting rid of the double B's and putting in respectable producers.
C. Better stories
D. All of the above.
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
I am torn between c and d but that’s is just to be expected. Why you ask? - For one the bb's aren’t really failing miserably...yet. - Second…Fox? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING, fox couldn't do a thing with enterprise. - Thirdly I’m sure that Enterprise will soon stray away from the voyager style and shift into it's own little part of the trek universe. - Ratings? I don’t know much about the ratings but I have a few hundred that says the ratings are doing fine.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Eliminate cable and the internet, return popular culture to a pre-80's era dominated by a handful of media outlets in which everyone in the United States can watch the same things.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
It's like...FarmerVision.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
A. UPN is Paramount's network. Enterprise is produced by Paramount. Therefore, how would this show be able to run on any other network?
B. No one's going to "get rid" of Berman & Braga. They're the bosses. The only way they're going to leave is if they quit on their own, and that's not gonna happen.
C. Better stories doesn't always equal better ratings. Some of the highest rated shows today are absolute crap. It depend on what the viewing population wants, and Braga seems to think that the viewing population wants sex and/or dumbed down stories. Whether that's really what they want is another question. I know it's not what I want.
[ March 27, 2002, 14:16: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:A. Getting away from UPN and switching to FOX or something.
Well, UPN is an automatic handicap on ratings, because it reaches a smaller proportion of American homes than the big four (only about 70% or so, I think), so it's behind out of the starting gate. Media analysts therefore avoid comparisons between the CBSes and FOXes and the UPNs and WBS. The only people who throw their hands in the air and say that Enterprise is getting the same ratings numbers as a couple of NBC sitcoms on the bubble and therefore it will soon be cancelled are Trek fans with a greater knowledge of Klingon grammar than media research.
And given Fox's past record with Sci-Fi, I'd say no on principle.
quote:B. Better management, getting rid of the double B's and putting in respectable producers.
There would appear to be a mountain of evidence that Paramount considers Berman a 'respectable' producer. In a Hollywood world of egos and icons and social climbers, Berman has quietly brought in 14 years of television on-time and on-or-under-budget. That's the reason they just gave him a fat contract extension. Whether the 1% of the viewing audience that has nothing better to do but bitch all day thinks he's respectable or not is irrelevant to the industry.
quote:C. Better stories
...will always encourage and retain more viewers, yes.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I agree Rick Berman is a keeper. He's not the problem. He's a Hollywood chameleon. You just need to step back a pace to see what I mean.
Gene loved him when he met him because in Berman he found someone who understood what he was talking about and shared his vision for Trek... But as Gene removed himself as his health started failing and Michael Piller came in, Trek shifted to Piller's notion of what Trek was supposed to be about... Piller was pretty much the one who created DS9, and Berman supported him. Note the drastic shift in DS9 from when Piller was on it to when Behr and Moore took over the big chairs. Berman then helped create Voyager with Jeri Taylor, and it was her vision that dominated the first three seasons, before Brannon Braga took over for her... and we all know what came after that...
Rick Berman is very good at adopting the creative viewpoint of the other producers he works with, and this is why he's lasted as long as he has in this very flighty town. You like the people who agree with you, and want to keep them close. He's figured out, either consciously or un-, that being a parrot is a good way to stay employed.
The downside of this is that it means Brannon "Mr. Continuity" Braga is pretty much in charge of where Trek will go for the forseeable future.
--Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:The downside of this is that it means Brannon "Mr. Continuity" Braga is pretty much in charge of where Trek will go for the forseeable future.
Not to defend Braga or anything, but I think Paramount is a much bigger factor for where Trek will go in the future. That's why B5 was such a great show. JMS didn't let the suits at Warner Brother dictate how he could make his show. Unfortunately, that also meant that some projects he just couldn't do (Crusade for ex.), but he felt he'd rather just not do them if they weren't going to be done his way.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oy. Then how do you explain the movies?
Posted by Flower Man (Member # 780) on :
Yeah, man. Legend of the Rangers sucked. As well as that other movie that was narrated by an old Lando back on Centuri Prime or whatever his planet was called.
[ March 28, 2002, 11:30: Message edited by: Flower Man ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
But here's the problem B&B have no limits on good or bad the stories go. So there is aboslutely no excuse for stories that we had on Voyager. Enterprise has been good so far in that respect.
UPN is considered by where I live the Ghetto station. Where all the shit shows are and all the (no offense) black shows mainly are. The station is geared towards almost the blacks.
Even though I only meant FOX as an example, they have a better reputation even with all the shit reality shows they keep making. If the any of the lagrer stations like ABC, CBS, or whatever took Enterprise under their wing, we would either see better stories, with B&B threatened to be fired and new producers put in, or cancelled.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Yes, "Legend of the Rangers" was bad. But "In the Beginning" (the movie you were referring to) I thought was very good. Same thing with the Crusade pilot movie.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh, yes, Star Trek on one of the major networks. That's the solution. Lord knows they treat unique shows with the respect they deserve. Oh, indeed. The brilliance of this idea is blinding. I can hardly see. Oh my.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, a a big three network would know JUST what to do with a Star Trek show...
Relegate it to a time slot from Hell and kill its budget, cancelling it abruptly after three seasons.
Points Matrix to the sign with big block letters that says: "TOS WAS HERE."
quote:Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
[ March 28, 2002, 14:24: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"As well as that other movie that was narrated by an old Lando..."
Was that after Cenaturi Prime was invaded by the forces of the Cloud City?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I think what they need is a richer writers stable. A lot of the ideas for these stories are pretty good, and the show has truly excellent production values. I think they really need to polish the plots, though. Ask: "What is this a story about?" and take the time to make sure it gets there. If that means taking an extra week or two per story, I think it'd be money well spent. Get those writers into groups talking to each other about the characters, maybe Braga is there (only occasionally) to tell them what big stroy arcs he wants to hit and when. Get those guys (and girls!) feeding back with each other, and I think you are going to start seeing much better shows.
Going to another network, even if it meant more money would be disasterous. Berman's there until 2006, and Braga's not showing any sign of quitting. I don't really blame them. People are still watching the show. This is just what I would do were I in Braga's shoes. That isn't to say that could do any better at the rest of it, but the writing needs improvement.
It seems simple, but the best way to make the show great is to have it be about something. Right now it seems a little listless in this regard. A lot of these episodes we've been seeing are nothing more than filler (something that Trek has had since TNG). I understand that not every episode can have huge sprawling FX-laden stories, but you can make those stories count, you really can. Make those writers watch some TOS and see the amazing things they were able to do with so little. How technically hard was it to make "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? Some stage makeup, Frank Gorshin in tights, and a silly matte shot of a burning city. And yet that's a lasting tale, something that resonates. That's the kind of thinking it's going to take.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
But are we going to see that in the future? Seriously, if you think about it, unless it occurs to B&B the best way to bring in ratings is to keep people watching it and to be a attractive to bring more in. Shitty stories do not attract nor keep people watching the series.
On the other hand, the Big 3 will never bring in any type of Trek unless the whole world stops when it airs, only then they will have a Sci-Fi show.
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Oy. Then how do you explain the movies?
Um..Sol it's called a quote i have no idea with what you are referring to. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hmm? I was speaking to Dukhat.
Posted by koy'peled Oy'tio (Member # 796) on :
oh right the "Oy" thing ive been addressed as Oy before hence koy'peled OY 'tio i must of wandered off their for a moment
[ April 03, 2002, 12:28: Message edited by: koy'peled Oy'tio ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Ask: "What is this a story about?" and take the time to make sure it gets there. If that means taking an extra week or two per story, I think it'd be money well spent.
I think the problem these days with Star Trek is that things are just way too rushed. And money is the motivating factor for this. Although I see what you're saying, in TPTB's eyes, it would be cost-prohibitive to take an extra week or two. A deadline is a deadline.
quote:It seems simple, but the best way to make the show great is to have it be about something. Right now it seems a little listless in this regard.
I quite agree. This was always Voyager's problem. It had an interesting premise which did not live up to its expectations. Robert Beltran even said himself that the show was supposed to be about an ordinary crew in an extraordinary situation, trying to adapt & survive. By the end of the show, however, no one really knew what it was about. With Enterprise, the general premise of this show was supposedly about the circumstances behind the creation of the Federation. Instead, it seems to just be about another crew aboard another ship, which we've had three times already. The only difference being that there's this "Temporal Cold War" thing which really has nothing to do with the premise.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
RE a couple extra weeks. I am talking about writer time. I don't know how those guys get paid, but I'm guessing it's either by the script or by the word. It just means you have to get them going on it a couple weeks ahead of time, fleshing it out. Any writer worth his salt can work on a couple scripts at once. Of the stories I've seen of Enterprise, I thought that each of them would have greatly benefitted from just a little more tuning. A workshop to hammer some kinks out and polish up some themes. It really wouldn't take that much, and I think they'd have a much better product to show for it. The extra money would be comparatively small, and even a modest ratings boost would easily cover it. That old carpenter's addage: "Measure Twice, Cut Once" holds true for television production.
[ April 03, 2002, 14:29: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, the time for a writer to cycle through a script and onto another is generally inversely proportional to the number of writers on staff. And Enterprise's writing staff is considerably larger than Voyager's. We're thus seeing seeing longer periods of time between scripts by the same writers... Bormanis has done two all year, the Jaquemettons likely will turn in four, though some were only teleplays.)
Then again, every single West Wing script this year has had Aaron Sorkin credited on it somewhere, someone infamous for churning out scripts at a Herculean rate and handing actors rewrites while the show is on the soundstage, so perhaps the whole theory that longer intervals equals quality is bunk.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I recall David Gerrold's Star Trek Lives book correctly, many times on The Original Series Gene Roddenberry would be finishing rewrites as the cast waited to start filming. They turned out some good episodes in spite of time crunchs as well.
However, I have no doubts that more feedback between the writers and, perhaps, a longer brainstorming session and peer review session would help bring about more polished scripts. So far, I've seen all of Enterprise's episodes save the one before "Aquisition." Only two has disappointed me. I think some of the others could have spent some more time in editting, but I've been happy with the writing.
This is also the first year of Enterprise. There have been a couple minor shake-ups in the writing staff (I believe two people have left and one or two more have come on recently). They have some kinks to work out obviously.
The biggest thing that the creative staff can do with season one coming to a close is set the direction of Enterprise. They need to do some work on the temporal cold war and find what more we're going to learn about it in season two. They don't need to plan the entire arc, but at least figure out the pitstops. In addition, it wouldn't hurt to set the development of the characters.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Joe Straczynski says that his best scripts are those he wrote in a rush, those he did in a day or so. Such stories are either arc stories that he's been thinking about for years, or stories that simply flow for one reason or another.
However, he normally doesn't need more than 7-10 days. The longer you spend on the script, the more it loses its immediacy and realism of dialogue. Novels, on the other hand, he tends to rewrite a lot because the words there need to paint pictures. According to him, what matters is not the writer, but who's on top; he even said that Jeri Taylor, a friend of his, could've done a lot more had it not been for the producers.
At least that's what a writer says. The producers' POV is that writers need to be controlled so that the spirit of the show remains the same. Most of the time, TOS was controlled by Gene Roddenberry, whom Bob Justman calls a better rewriter than a writer, and Gene Coon, who wrote a lot of good stories for Star Trek. Plus, the door was open for people like Bob Justman to contribute a lot of story ideas and solutions.
It's mostly about the people on the top; they choose the writers, they decide how far the writers can go.
[ April 03, 2002, 19:27: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:realism of dialogue
Oh, please. Even cast members of B5 make fun of how shitty his dialogue was.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
You just chopped off 90% of my sentence and invented what the rest of it said. I'll do the same to you:
"cast members of B5 make fun of"
Oh Please. Do you actually think that the B5 cast members can make fun of something? They don't have a sense of humor!
What the remainder of the sentence said was that the dialogue loses on realism if rewritten a lot. I never said it was 100% realistic in the first place; what it means is that if a piece of dialogue is 56% realistic at the beginning, it becomes 34% realistic if you spend a lot of time on it.
Also, some of B5's dialogue wasn't meant to be realistic. The aliens have a different idea of how the English language should be used, especially the Minbari and the Narns who prefer a more theatrical manner of speech. This was intended.
[ April 03, 2002, 20:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Narn..
Narn..narn..narn..narn narn narn narnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarn narnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarn narnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarn narnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarn narnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarnnarn
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Boris, Mike S. can't write dialogue for humans. Maybe his alien dialogue is okay, but his earth dialogue sucks and is very boring.
I think it was Mike O'Hare (I think I got that right -- Jeff Sinclare) who was famous for mocking the dialogue: "I got up in the morning. I had a shower. I went to the garage. I opened the garage door. I turned on the car. I drove out of the garage. I lowered the garage door. I drove to the party. I stopped at red lights. I went through green lights. I got to your house. I rang the doorbell. You opened the door..."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, whatever the dialogue, his acting sure didn't help matters at all...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm not sure it was the quality of his acting (who can say? throughout Philip Anglim's stint as Vedek Bareil, I kept wondering whether he was playing the role very mysteriously, or was just a bad actor; eventually his return as Mirror Bareil made me lean toward the former); the problem lay more in the fact that he played it very low-key, and that wasn't what they wanted in a space opera. Problem is, we then got Bruce "Get the Hell out of the Actor's Studio!" Boxleitner instead.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
You're again talking to me if as if my argument was "B5 had 100% realistic dialogue.", That's not my argument. Assume for a moment that a piece of dialogue is .05% realistic. What I said was that if you spend too much time on it, it becomes .04% realistic.
And regardless of what Mike O'Hare says about how *good* the dialogue was (I was rather speaking about realism, i.e. "I ascended" vs. "I got up"), to that I can only say that B5 won two Hugo Awards in a row. Only TOS of all the Star Trek series had managed the same feat ("The Menagerie", "City on the Edge of Forever"), while TNG won two awards but not in a row ("Inner Light", "All Good Things").
Here are the candidates for 1996, when "The Coming of Shadows" won:
Apollo 13 (Universal) Brian Grazer, producer; Ron Howard, director; William Broyles Jr. and Al Reinert, screenplay "The Coming of Shadows" (Babylon 5 Warner Brothers) J. Michael Straczynski, Douglas Netter, John Copeland, producers; J. Michael Straczynski, screenplay; Janet Greek, director "The Visitor" (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Paramount Television) Rick Berman and Ira Steven Behr, executive producers; Michael Taylor, screenplay; David Livingston, director Toy Story (Buena Vista) Ralph Guggenheim and Bonnie Arnold, producers; John Lasseter, director; Joss Whedon, Andrew Stanton, Joel Cohen, and Alec Sokolow, screenplay 12 Monkeys (Universal) Charles Roven, producer; Terry Gilliam, director; David and Janet Peoples, screenplay
And here are the candidates for 1997, which is when "Severed Dreams" won, while two more B5 eps could've been nominated if JMS had wanted that:
Independence Day (Centropolis Film Productions/20th Century Fox Film) Directed by Roland Emmerich, Written by Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich, Produced by Dean Devlin Mars Attacks! (Warner Bros.) Directed by Tim Burton, Written by Jonathan Gems, Produced by Tim Burton and Larry Franco Babylon 5 "Severed Dreams" (Warner Bros.) Directed by David J. Eagle, Written by J. Michael Straczynski, Produced by John Copeland Star Trek: First Contact (Paramount Pictures) Directed by Jonathan Frakes, Story by Ronald D. Moore, Brannon Braga & Rick Berman, Screenplay by Ronald D. Moore & Brannon Braga, Produced by Rick Berman Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Trials and Tribble-ations" (Paramount Pictures) Directed by Jonathan West, Written by Ronald D. Moore & Rene Echevarria, Story by Ira Steven Behr & Hans Beimler & Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Executive Producers Ira Steven Behr & Rick Berman. Based upon the original series Star Trek episode The Trouble with Tribbles by David Gerrold. Note: Two Babylon 5 episodes, "War without End" and "Z'Ha'Dum," received enough votes to be nominated but J. Michael Straczynski declined.
This is as objective as we get as far as the quality of B5 writing is concerned. While it probably isn't the best writing in the world, it does seem it's better than that of Voyager or DS9 at the time. DS9 wasn't even nominated in the following years, while B5 was, in 1999 ("Sleeping in Light") -- only "Insurrection" competed with this episode.
Hence, I don't see a problem with saying that the VOY/ENT crew could learn a thing or two about writing from B5's crew. After all, that's what B5 depended on -- it never had enough money to match the other shows' visual effects or other aspects of production.
[ April 04, 2002, 19:26: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
It does help that B5 was about something. It had a direction in which to travel. Maybe a vision. I don't know that Enterprise has that right now.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
(Hugos) = (People's Choice Awards) - (People with that hip pop culture fixation that alternately vexes and fascinates Sizers)^(1/avg. number of sexual partners in convention hall attendee) Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Nifty = could use that beer glass Intelligent = couldn't agree more, got blasted on another board for suggesting this was right Funny = but true Scary = the whole gov. or the treaty referendum? Wise = Rex Murphy?
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
What Sol said.
BTW: Matrix: Two things;
1. What is the derivation of your signature?
2. Your sig has a few typos. I believe it should be:
Duty to those less fortunate Principle before self interest Strength in the face of fear
Whatever happens, never let yourself down.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Everyone asks where my signatures comes from.
The first is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt's father, which his son lived by. As for the typos, yea I know, but didn't feel like correcting them. It means even though you might be the most powerful man/woman in the world, don't act like it, help others less fortunate than yourself.
The last one I made it up. It means don't let things get to you.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Y'know, I really like B5. I do. I think if you removed 50% of it's first season, 80% of it's final season, two of the movies and assorted episodes, you'd end up with my favouritest TV series of all time ever.
But "Life is a candle, forever haunting the darkness that must rise with the sun" got old. The dialogue veered between "sometimes naturally humourous" (usually Garibaldi and/or Zack, who I loved despite his shitness), to really, really, really, really, really bad. In fact, worse than that. Awful.
Of course, I also liked Boxleitner. Honest. I thought he could do quiet anger really well. I even thought he pulled off crying quite well (which is difficult. Most male actors look stupid when they have to cry). He seemed to take a large downturn in season 5 though. The ginger hair obviously affected his brain.
All the cast were horrendous at doing double takes though.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And I think Ivanova made more jokes about being Russian in the first half of the first season than Chekov did in his entire career...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
OK, so...yeah. "Futurama" finale anyone? Poor Welshy...he stayed unintelligible to the bitter end.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Damn it, was that on last night? Curses!
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Blasted Fox kicked out last night, offering only the never stale comedy of a blue screen or noisy static.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ivonova also had more lines in the first half of season 1 than Chekov did in his entire career though, so it balances out.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Fair point.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I saw that episode... very interesting. Too bad the crew got back together in cartoon form only. Oh well... at least it's something. Anyway, I think Star Trek should take a nice 14 year break now...
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Bringing old topics back from the dead? I agree that Trek should rest for maybe up to 6-8 years, before they put another series up.
I mean some refer Trek as a neverending story that CEO's are milking until it drops dead.
That't why there will be no SW Episode 7 after Episode 3.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh my, yes, Lucas knows the danger of returning to the well too often. Most certainly. A textbook case.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Besides, why will we need Episode 7? We'll almost certainly be enjoying the freshness and originality of Star Wars: Episode 4: A New Hope: Ultra Super Special Edition With Stuff In.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)