posted
Oh sod it. I'm just gonna be a big fairy and go all zen about it. Shit happens, Archer was a nancy, but Trek is Trek.
We've stuck with it through worse, much worse. Remember the Boy? Did we give up because of him? No we did not.
Remember that moment when we all realised that Voyager had become the Janeway and Seven show? Mind that was different. Jeri Ryan was crumpet extrordinaire.
Remember Star Trek V? Probably best if we didn't there, on second thoughts.
But - we've stuck with it through worse, and for all its faults, this new film is the future of the trek.
So let's just wait and see. And if all else fails, remember: it can't be as bad Spocks Brain.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Dude, if you're going to use Enterprise to defend your version of 'canon integrity'...
Dude, it's not my version of anything. If I were running things, I'd have done them much differently. The point is, ENT was not intended to take place in a different continuity from any of the other shows or movies. It's part of the Star Trek canon. Whether it was good or not has not a thing to do with it.
The fans decide what they like and don't like. They don't decide what's canon and what isn't.
I already don't expect to like this new movie at all. There's plenty about the premise and what little we've seen of its execution thus far that really turns me off. I'll give it a chance and go see it, though. It'll be hard to make a film worse than Nemesis was.
Bottom line is, CONTINUITY ERRORS ≠ REBOOT, because if they did then Trek's already been rebooted by just about every new series that's come out.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I hope they give Karl Urban blue lenses, his dark peepers are handsome and all but McCoy's most prominent characteristic was his X-Ray super-blue eyes, which creeped me out as a wee lad when he was romping around like a zombie in Spock's old room in TSFS.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
One of these days I'm gonna go look back through a whole bunch of threads from 2000 and 2001 and see exactly who stated their opinion was "I just want more Star Trek, I don't care how bad it is" and see if any of the names match up with the list of the more vociferous Enterprise-detractors. Should be fun.
And, Jeri Ryan really wasn't all that, was she? Take away the skintight suit and what was left? Not a lot really. Since then she's also become a bit of a showkiller, having seen off Boston Public and Shark.
posted
Wasn't the skin-tight cat suit the whole point. I do concede your point though. It was a case of Bragga giving his girlfriend more scren time as the show went on.
As for Enterprise, well, it was OK, but it never realy knew what it was in the begining. Was it Star Trek? Was it based on Star Trek, but not quite the same? Was it for the fans? Was it for the ratings?
I think that Enterprise at first was seen as a kind of reboot by the producers, but later became more reverent of cannon, to the extreme in season 4.
I consider this film, so far, and without seeing it, to be a re-boot (new cast, new sets etc). I think I just don't get the point of doing it, other than for the money.
So I'll see the movie and it'll either click, or I'll be disapointed and go watch TSFS to cheer me up.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:The point is, ENT was not intended to take place in a different continuity from any of the other shows or movies. It's part of the Star Trek canon. Whether it was good or not has not a thing to do with it.
Actually, both Berman and Braga said that Enterprise was it's own new history, created by the events in First Contact... so make of that what you will.
posted
I heard that quote somewhere myself, but I don't know if it was actually attributed to Berman and/or Braga. But the truth is, those two guys didn't even know what the Temporal Cold War was supposed to be about, and they CREATED IT! They're in no position to dictate what Enterprise was or wasn't to me.
I wish people would come to the conclusion, as I have, that Enterprise was just a holodeck fantasy of Riker's. All four years of it, and the events of those years didn't actually happen that way. That's how I justify how bad the show was. But of course, no one is going to see the truth.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I wish people would come to the conclusion, as I have, that Enterprise was just a holodeck fantasy of Riker's. All four years of it, and the events of those years didn't actually happen that way. That's how I justify how bad the show was. But of course, no one is going to see the truth.
Actually I prefer to think that TATV was actually Riker's fantasy and Trip didn't die. Everything else can stand as is.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I wish people would come to the conclusion, as I have, that Enterprise was just a holodeck fantasy of Riker's. All four years of it, and the events of those years didn't actually happen that way. That's how I justify how bad the show was.
How do you justify Voyager, a lot of which was worse?
The thing is, since opinions are subjective, we're all going to have differing ones about what is "good" and "bad."
What's funny is that, looking at it in a general sort of way, the new film has almost the same premise as ENT. A new, inexperienced crew on their first mission must respond to a threat from time-travelling villains who are trying to mess up history at a critical juncture. They carry out this mission with the aid of a guy from the future.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I didn't think Voyager was worse than Enterprise. It started to be lousy for the last few seasons, especially the series finale, but it was still better than ENT and its series finale.
Perhaps I should have added a smiley or something to my post so that people will realize that what I'm saying is tongue-in-cheek and shouldn't take it so seriously. And that's how I feel about this film. Don't take it so seriously. Enjoy it for what it is, a re-energizing of the show. Because if it fails, there will be no more Star Trek for a long, long time.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic