Leap forward to 2001, and what do we have? "Voyager" has just ended, to much indifference, some relief, but very little regret. What we know of the tenth film looks good on paper, but everyone ius waiting to see the finished result and expecting enough changes to make the finished article quite unlike what we wre expecting. And, the new show "Enterprise" is lumbering into production, veiled in secrecy and to a chorus of fan disapproval.
There are some dissenting voices as a counterpoint to that chorus. They say we're being overly negative; that we're letting an obsession with minutiae and trivia overwhelm any possibility of an unbiased viewpoint; that we're hypocrites who'll all watch it anyway; above all, that we at least GIVE IT A CHANCE!
Fair enough.
I haven't conducted a poll of who's in which camp; if I did, I'd really love to compare it against the list of those who said "give Trek a break" and their opponents the "I'll watch anything as long as it's Trek."
Maybe we've all become too cynical. Seven years of disappointment (not just Voyager; "Insurrection" didn't help) has eroded the fans' own sense of wonder that Berman and Braga hasten to ascribe to their new starship Captain, Jonathan Archer. Add to this the diminishing of Roddenberry vision - DS9 is a prime culprit, with its "space battle of the week" mentality - and also factor in rapid commmunications over the Internet changing the nature of fan interaction, and it's safe to say it isn't 1994 anymore!
So - will I watch. Probably. I will "give it a chance." But my life's changing. I don't have a lot of time to devote to following TV shows. If it's not good, I'll abandon it in short order.
------------------
"If Morden is afraid of green penguins, and Draal is shown to have
access to them, a speculation would be that Draal will use them
against Morden in the future. However if Draal only has a purple
moose, saying that he could use it against Morden would be a story
idea."
- rastb5m FAQ
After twelve years of "new Trek" (TNG first aired 1989 in Germany) I'm still not tired of it and I could go on watching something like DS9 or Voyager forever. These series have always extended my horizon, despite occasional rehashed plots and bad writing (of which also DS9 had its share). The often quoted "sense of wonder" ironically is what I can expect least of all from the new series. It just can't be "to boldly go where no man has gone before" unless they completely screw up history.
As for giving it a chance, I admit that I have enormous objections and preconceptions that will prevent me from enjoying it from the very beginning. Time must show if I nevertheless get accustomed to it. But after all, no one can force me to like it only because it's Star Trek - there has to be a first time for everything.
------------------
"There is an intelligent lifeform out on the other side of that television too."
(Gene Roddenberry)
Ex Astris Scientia
------------------
"The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold,
And quite unacustomed to fear.
But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told,
Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer."
Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
I myself am excited about Enterprise. I realize that they are treading on dangerous territory, but I will watch and enjoy any Star Trek incarnation as long as it captivates me and entertains me. I have no objections to the premise for Enterprise, and, like Aban Rune, I'm going to watch it until I it stops being entertaining or captivating.
------------------
God (using a Devil hand puppet): Yaagh! I'm the Devil! I'm evil! I'm spooky! I'm dark! And I'm evil! Gimme an "E!" Gimme a "V!" Gimme a "U!" Gimme an "L!" What's that spell? Evil! Goooo EVIL!
Devil: Hey, yo, that shit ain't funny!
--from Tatsuya Ishida's Sinfest
Founder, president, CEO, CFO, COO, under-secretary general, mascot, and caterer of the APAO
That said, I do expect that ENT is going to be a major cock-up, but only because of the people in charge, not because of a problem w/ the premise. However, even though I expect it, I don't assume it to be inevitable, so I'll still watch it to see if my suspicions are confirmed or not.
------------------
"Even the colors are pompous!"
-a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure
For this, you die!
2- I was tilting towards the "let's hate Enterprise because it is going to be made by the same people who made Voyager" camp. Then I saw all the doomsayers bemoaning the Voyager climax prior to its release. I didn't get to see Endgame immediately, so I've been seeing it get bashed for a few days.
Well I saw it last night. And I liked it. It's no Maltese Falcon - but it wasn't Lost in Space, either.
I am now in the "don't judge it until you've seen it" camp. And it seems as though I may like Enterprise even if some people don't.
Many people hated TNG when the premise was first aired - how could there possibly be Star Trek without Kirk, Spock et al.?
Many people continued to hate TNG after it hit the screens, and for good reason - the first season was largely shite.
By the time it finished we had one of the best series ever to grace the television screens of the human race.
I will watch the new series not because it has the words Star Trek at the front of the title, but because I hope it will embody the Star Trek spirit that Gene Roddenberry injected into all of his work - and that his successors have done their best (albeit not with total success) to preserve.
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]
--Jonah
And for us "Net Treks" especially, it should be an exciting time. From TNG to DS9 and right on into Voyager - the same class ships, with the same ol' Federation look'n'feel.
Now, they won't be so pretty - but they'll be sleek??! Bulky 'Event Horizon' type long range ships with warp nacelles??? Who knows?? That's the point.. no one knows.
I think that they'll gear this series as the series that goes '...where no trekker has gone before'.
In a sense... this is the one part of trek history that hasn't be 'completely' written. I asked myself during "First Contact".. what really happens after this movie? Will they mention Picard??
If the newest series was going to be a premise built on the 25th.. or the 26th + centuries .. We'd still be hammering away at it .. cuz either, the technology won't be up to snuff .. or .. They're trying to pull another TNG-Rabbit out of the proverbial Trek-Hat by hopping centuries ahead of the last series.
We can honestly say, they are doing something unique. I'll give it a chance!
I share the same skeptisism as the rest of you, don't get me wrong... and if it sucks... I'll be equally pissed. But I think it has potential.. I just hope they do it right!
Cheers!
quote:
That said, I do expect that ENT is going to be a major cock-up, but only because of the people in charge, not because of a problem w/ the premise.
Well said, Tim. I felt exactly the same way about Voyager.
The Voyager season 1 writing staff was basically the TNG season 7 writing staff minus Echevarria and Moore. And by the sounds of things, the ENT season 1 writing staff is shaping up to have basically no faces from the Voyager season 7 writing staff at all. The production staff is decidedly more DS9-ish than Voyagerish.
I can't understand why anyone would assume that the first season of Enterprise will be like a 13 hour extended version of "Threshold" and a 13 hour extended version of "Favorite Son" running back-to-back. The potential for it sucking is certainly there, but nobody has the slightest piece of evidence that isn't based on what has come before that it will.
[ June 08, 2001: Message edited by: DCF ]
When DS9 came around my first thought was, alright another trek series. This is gonna be great. I had no bad thoughts about it being on a station... in fact I thought that was probably going to be a strong point. When I heard people scoffing at the idea of a station "because Star Trek is for ships" I laughed for days. I still laugh at it. There were times I was disappointed that they came up with the Defiant, but it did add something to the show.
When Voyager came out I was again happy. Another trek series, this is great, I'll have TNG reruns, DS9, and this new show Voyager. A female captain? interesting, this will be new. I generally enjoyed Voyager for it's first few seasons. I didn't have major problems with it until "Threshold" and "Future's End" from there things got steadily worse. But I never prejudged it.
Enterprise is different. I don't care about the past thing--- I'd love to have more information about this period. Infact I chuckle to myself when people say "But Star Trek's about looking forward, not back." I do however care about continuity. I like a story that fits together like a puzzle, one that doesn't require a sledgehammer to put it together. I am not entertained by "Threshold," "Voyager Conspiracy," "Future's End," among others. Enterprise is limited in the scope of what it can do.
The chance was taken though... Enterprise has already failed my review, I don't need to see an episode--- I just need to look at the casting sheet. I don't need to see an episode, I just have to know they have Klingons in it. I already know that the ship is slow, has no phasers, no transporter, no subspace radio, no holodecks, no replicators, no photon torpedoes. However, they are giving it transporters and are implying a very fast ship. I don't know about a trip to Qo`noS either, the ship shouldn't be able to travel that far [Kirk's five year mission did have resupplies].
I was open to a prequel until they deliberately started contridicting things. We haven't even seen the premire. At the very least they should have used the pre-production time for research, instead of unnecessary hipe. And their hipe is also leading to their downfall, as this hipe is showing us how bad Enterprise is going to be.
Personally I may or may not watch it. I like Andromedia, it's light, has adventure, and it was envisoned by Gene. But then I didn't watch TNG for the first two years..
Wow. That's the worst argument I've heard since I last looked at one of Omega's posts on the Flameboard.
They are implying that the ship is fast? Compared to what, exactly? The fact that the Ent-D regularly seemed to get from one side of the Federation to the other within TV seasons, when it should have taken at least a year at high-warp speeds? The fact that on TOS, dialogue regularly stated that the Enterprise was travelling all over the galaxy (eg "We've been thrown clear across the galaxy")?
Also, you give a big long list of things that (according to you), the ship shouldn't have, and then reveal that they have two of them? Two out of seven? And one of those is subjective (and the other may not be true at all, after recent comments)? Or are you saying it'll be bad because it hasn't got phasers, holodecks, et al? Because that makes a huge difference to good storytelling, doesn't it?
Point by point:
1/ Ship is slow. Argued above. Subjective point of view. Ships in Trek regularly ignore their speed limits, which have little effect on storytelling anyway.
2/ No phasers. Will replaced by another sci-fi weapon, that'll do pretty much the same thing. Notice any effective difference between TOS and TNG weapons? No? Same thing.
3/ No transporter. Eaves says there might not be one. In any case, we don't know for certain when it was invented. So it can be in it if TPTB want it to.
4/ No Supspace Radio. The Horizon didn't have it, true. But what exact year was that? And the Horizon could have been an old ship. Supspace Radio could be a new thing.
5/ No Holodecks. Lord knows how TOS survived without them. What will we do without our yearly Holodeck accident?
6/ No Replicators. Again, TOS. Which might have had them (depending on your views on how those food slots actually worked).
7/ No Photon Torps. And when were these invented? Regardless, they're hardly an important part of the show, are they?
I'd be willing to put money that Okuda, Eaves, and most of the other members of the production crew have done fair to significant amounts of research. And not so that they can slaveshly follow it, but so they can realise what's important, and what they can "tweak" for the sake of good entertainment.
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
1/ Ship is slow. Argued above. Subjective point of view. Ships in Trek regularly ignore their speed limits, which have little effect on storytelling anyway.
Your statement is completely false. It doesn't matter how much the ship moves during a season [off screen there can be wormholes or other phenomena that gets the ship further away]. What does matter is the speed within a single episode. It is impossible for this ship to get to any other star [outside of those multi-star systems such as binaries and trinaries etc.] within an hour--- travel times would literally take at least a day.
quote:
3/ No transporter. Eaves says there might not be one. In any case, we don't know for certain when it was invented. So it can be in it if TPTB want it to.
It's worth mentioning still.
quote:
4/ No Supspace Radio. The Horizon didn't have it, true. But what exact year was that? And the Horizon could have been an old ship. Supspace Radio could be a new thing.
The Horizon was launched in 2168, the Horizon could not have been around before 2161 [it was a Federation vessel], Subspace Radio technology was around by 2150's for the Earth-Romulan treaty.
quote:
5/ No Holodecks. Lord knows how TOS survived without them. What will we do without our yearly Holodeck accident?
I could do without the holodecks completely they really don't add anything to the entertainment of the show. What I'm mentioning with Transporters, Phasers, Holodecks, Photon Torpedoes, Subspace Radio--- etc etc etc... is that they are said not to be around in this time period. The Enterprise Cannot use them. My Point is that it would be a bad show if it had them because it shouldn't have them. TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY [said reluctantly] all established things that should never be intentionally stepped on. There are many episodes in VOY that intentionally stepped on toes [Threshold is the largest example I can give]. No series before has the potential as the single episode "Threshold" did, but Enterprise does. Enterprse must not have certain items, aliens, plots, etc unless it wants to intentially destroy things.
quote:
6/ No Replicators. Again, TOS. Which might have had them (depending on your views on how those food slots actually worked).
Seeing as the tribbles were able to get into them, I view them as simple food elevators/transporting devices. But not replicators.
quote:
7/ No Photon Torps. And when were these invented? Regardless, they're hardly an important part of the show, are they?
23rd century [2215 according to the TNG TM]. If Photon Torpedoes were around they would have been used in the Earth-Romulan War of 2150's, but nukes were used instead.
Or even better, the Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons".
They will have the just invented Transporter, which most people don't trust.
According to Sci-Fi Weekly, at least some of the Voyager writers are moving over to Enterprise.
I gave Andromeda a full season, and will probably do the same for Enterprise.
In all fairness though, I will watch, and if the stories are good, I will enjoy. But as a long-time, die-hard Star Trek fan, it is my prerogative to fuss about aspects of the show I do not like. No one has to agree with me, and if I am in the minority, that is O.K. It is just a TV show, and I am not going to lose any sleep over the debates. If you enjoy the show, even though I may not, more power to you!
But, there is a certain continuity that I believe Berman and his cohorts should adhere to in order for Enterprise to be regarded as "true-to-form" Trek," at least in my book. They are not doing very well thus far, although this is only my opinion. (Again, my feelings will not be hurt if you do not agree.) I will be patient, and time will tell...
I mean if it turns out to be horrible I'll switch right back to the reruns of Sex And The City and Six Feet Under on HBO.
Wheras other producers want, what? Pies?
"If Paramount hadn't said do another series, there wouldn't be one."
Er, yes. Obviously. What's your point?
No but do we really want to be like that. You have to admit it's a different direction for Star Trek, and I think that's pretty exciting. We're going back to the origins of Star Trek. That could be really cool. I think the show has the potential to be really great. I'm going to reserve my judgement until after I have watched it. If it has crappy writing, then I won't like it. If the acting is terrible I won't like it. But right now, I have not seen enough to know about those things.
About 'Roddenberry's Dream'. Did you ever see the scene in Pulp Fiction where Harvey Keitel is convincing Quentin Tarantino to let them use their sheets? "Were your Uncle Conrad and Aunt Ginny millionaires?/No./Well your Uncle Marcellus is. I'm positive if Uncle Conrad and Aunt Ginny were millionaires, they would've furnished you with a whole bedroom set, which your Uncle Marsellus is more than happy to do. (takes out a roll of bills)
I like oak myself, that's what's in my bedroom. How 'bout you Jimmie, you an oak man?/Oak's nice." For some reason that came to mind...
[ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
quote:
What does matter is the speed within a single episode. It is impossible for this ship to get to any other star [outside of those multi-star systems such as binaries and trinaries etc.] within an hour--- travel times would literally take at least a day.