Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Noooooo!!!!! 22nd Century confirmed for Series V.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crobato: [QB] "Writers are human. Star Trek is fiction. Continuity Errors will be made." Continuity errors and deliberate continuity violations are two different matters. We're not talking about a line or two here in reference to a past subject. Picard's line about the first meeting of Klingons is more of an error of dialog. We are talking about structuring an entire show to rewrite continuity in a possible vast and sweeping scale. Continuity errors and rewriting history are way too different matters. So is accidentally hitting someone in the road or trying to deliberately run them over. Don't you ever, ever confuse the two. "Well, its apparently taken a toll on your ability to treat the series as make-believe from time to time. I'm holding up fine. Oh, the three weeks in the hospital after "Star Trek: First Contact" were bad, as was the night when the stardates in TNG's first season were out-of-order. When "Generations" made it clear that Kirk apparently died before Scotty went missing, I nearly had a heart attack. But I've soldiered through it all." Speak for yourself. Four out of five TNG viewers have tuned out of Star Trek in the last years or so. This is about entertainment. The lack of consistency distracts from entertainment. When it does not entertain, we change the channel period. When more people tune out, series are cancelled. It does not matter if you have the fucking endurance to watch Trek. I don't believe I should "endure" watching Trek. You can endure whatever you want, it simply won't be there when it's cancelled in the first place. You think Trek now has a guaranteed future? For the first time in 10 years, there is a strong sense of doubt about the entire viability of the franchise. New viewers are simply tuning to Trek; they go to another cool series like Buffy or Farscape or Dark Angel. X-Files consistently has double the ratings of Voyager. "No you can't. If you can't have a non-Earthcrew Vulcan onboard a pre-TOS ship, you can't have someone providing Roddenberrian commentary on the illogical state of mankind. If you can't have Zefram Cochrane behaving different to the way he was seen in TOS, you can't have the dramatic device of the guy not meeting the legendary expectations of the 24th century in ST:FC." Oh please, don't use this example. People understand that the character of a person in a history book may be different in real life. "Um, bullshit. Stardates are irrelevant. Like I said, Okuda put two and two together and made an OK conjecture. But let's not wet the bed if it gets overwritten and the result doesn't suck ass." Oh I see, you're using tough words now. Stardates are irrevelant yeah. I WILL MAKE SURE THOSE WORDS WILL HAUNT YOU IN THE FUTURE. We now know how you regard contuinity, guideline and consistency. GO FUCK YOURSELF IF YOU THINK YOU'RE MANLY USING THE BS WORD. Stardates create a frame of reference, a sense of structure that is needed for belieavability. It is APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU that give Berman and Braga a license to screw things knowing they will be accepted and defended by asses like you. "So fucking what. It's Paramount's money. It's not like they're charging a subscription fee to let you watch the show. If they want to spend more money to get better talent, all power to them. Look at the cast of some other sci-fi shows and you'll see what you get when you go cheap on the talent." Excuse me? You think money equals talent? Just because you think they're lesser paid they're crappier talent? Do you ever think that they may compensate with enthusiasm and belief? Sure Paramount pays a lot for Voyager, and I don't even think it's in the top five for quality in an SF show. I check the other SF shows and I find many of them BETTER and more INNOVATIVE than Star Trek is now. Why don't you check other SF boards. The main SF literary movement literally disowns Star Trek. Very few established SF authors would even give Star Trek books a try. ST is a laugh. The most respected SF shows in TV now are the X-Files and Farscape. There is a polish in those two shows that even exceeds that of Trek. Andromeda gets better ratings in syndication than Voyager gets in network TV. Many of these shows are being done on a lesser budget. The fact that Paramount are paying so much RAISES the stakes if ratings are low. A higher cost of the show would make it more like to be CANCELLED. Higher costs raises the vulnerability exposure of cancellation. VIACOM stockholders are not happy about UPN and Trek anymore. For a show of Voyager's expense, a rating of 3.0 is totally ABYSMAL. In standard networks like ABC, CBS and NBC, Trek would have deservedly been cancelled long long ago. Trek is always running sort of like in a subsidy lifeline. One day, the stockholders will say, "Sorry, we don't do subsidies anymore." Then you will see what Paramount's Money interests will do to this show. It is a big MONEY LOSER. Not even the merchandise, the game licenses, the novels will make up for it. If Series V and Trek X tanks, it's kaput, finished. [This message has been edited by crobato (edited May 19, 2001).] [/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