The most important reason that I will not watch the new show is that the new show will be like the majority of the other Trek shows. Since the first show, the franchise has been consistent in the treatment of the characters and the plots. DS9 attempted to be a little different-this show deviated from the episodic approach of the first, second, and fourth shows. However, this approach was not fully successfully and may never be tried again. Furthermore, the stories are conservative as compared to other sci-fi on tv, for ex. Farscape and Lexx.

My mother, who has been a Star Trek fan since 1966 ("The Naked Time") and has watched the first, second, and third (third is her favorite), has stopped watching the shows. She feels the current Star Trek writing is very conservative and that the characters are not allowed to mature. She is simply bored of the franchise and will refuse to watch anymore.

For me, the choice is this-do I want to see 60's sci-fi, modified by PC, written in the early 2000s (Enterprise), or do I want to see 90's and early 2000s sci-fi, with story arcs and character maturity? I prefer the latter and this is why I have stopped watching Star Trek.

I will give an example of what our family now prefers. On the latest Farscape, "Out of Their Minds", the crews souls are transmigrated from one body to another. Crichton's soul is in Aeryn, and Aeryn is in Rigel XVI. While in Aeryn's body, Crichton experiences a female's body and finds the experience enjoyable. My mother and I discussed this. She referred to Nurse Chapel, who had an infatuation with Spock, being in a hypothetical situation being in Spock's body. She would want to experience something of his body. In the 60's, this type of experience would have been taboo. In the 90's and early 2000's, this is not so taboo. Yet the Star Trek franchise is entrenched in the taboos of a bygone decade. This is one example.

I have nothing against the new show. I think the potential exists for the show to be successful by entertaining the fans who liked Voyager and, maybe, bringing in converts to the Star Trek universe. The issue I have is a personnal one. I have matured beyond Star Trek. I go back there as one goes back home to family-I was raised on Star Trek. There is contentment there. Recently, before I began to like Farscape, I saw the early second season of this show and I didn't like it. My mother suggested that this show was alien to my senses for I was used to Star Trek. I dismissed this for I liked Babylon Five, a non-Star Trek show. A year later, I see that Babylon Five is a better "Star Trek" show and I have come to accept Farscape. This show is not so alien and I have come here to call this show my new "sci-fi" home.

quote:

---

My mother, who has been a Star Trek fan since 1966 ("The Naked Time") and has
watched the first, second, and third (third is her favorite), has stopped watching the
shows. She feels the current Star Trek writing is very conservative and that the
characters are not allowed to mature. She is simply bored of the franchise and will
refuse to watch anymore.

---

This is SO True. There was always this 'the powers that be, don't like us doing episodes that can't be shown out of order' with VOYAGER. This was their excuse for not letting the characters grow, to mature. Paris/Kim/Tuvok/Chakotay/Belanna and Neelix are the same characters in season 7 as they were in season 1. even the ship hasn't 'changed' or 'grown' - it is as if you could watch 'Ex Post Facto' and then 'Extreme Risk' and see NO difference in the characters. The only character that has REALLY grown is the Doctor. And, well Seven. Janeway has just fluctuated between Strong Captain, to Female Captain, to vidictive Captain, to Tortured Captain, to unstable Captain and back again.

Voyager has had the 'big wigs's' finger's in the pie for the last seven years - and well they are ruining Trek. They want a series that they can just sell to any market for syndication - and not get good ratings the first time round - or scrapping that - make a consistantly strong, engrossing, growing, maturing drama/series. They want it for the average person who can just sit down and watch 'Favourite Son' and not worry about anything else.

Andrew

------------------
Homer: I'm gonna miss Springfield. This town's been awfully good to us.
Bart: No, it hasn't, Dad. That's why we're leaving.
Homer: Oh, yeah. [pokes his head out the window] So long, Stinktown!

[This message has been edited by AndrewR (edited May 20, 2001).]

I can't understand boycotting a perfectly watchable series just because everything doesn't go the way you want it to. I'd recommend you give the new show a chance before saying "I've matured beyond Star Trek", which, to me, sounds a bit pretentious. Star Trek has something many of the new series' can't offer, a wealth of history.

------------------
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"
Samuel Adams

Very good points. I agree totally (with the proviso that TOS wasn't exactly big on arcs or continuity).

I don't think I can be bothered to try to follow this show, knowing full well what it's going to be like. "Give it a chance," people say. They said that for every one of the seven fucking years we put up with Voyager. I remember reading a review of "Caretaker" that highlighted certain problems which are stll valid seven years later.

quote:

---

I can't understand boycotting a perfectly watchable series just because everything doesn't go the way you want it to.

---

Define "perfectly watchable." And shouldn't we be wanting TV that's a bit better than just "watchable?" B5, Farscape, Homicide, they're all more than just "watchable."

quote:

---

I'd recommend you give the new show a chance before saying "I've matured beyond Star Trek", which, to me, sounds a bit pretentious.

---

It's called "growing up." It's perfectly acceptable to not watch the same TV you were watching when you were a child. Mind you, I'm trying to tell that to a bunch of people who still watch bloody Transformers. ..

quote:

---

Star Trek has something many of the new series' can't offer, a wealth of history.

---

Which the new show will ignore or contradict at every opportunity. And why should I watch a TV show just because it has a history? I don't watch "Coronation Street" or any of the long-running US daytime soaps, like, er. . . "All My Children?"

------------------
�

Offering history? That's the problem. That's a pretty banal premise there.

Trek or Enterprise isn't a brand name anymore synonymous with creative boldness.

I don't advocate boycotting any show, but I don't want to be bothered watching it or religiously trying to catch it. If I don't have anything to do around Wed 8'oclock I may catch a glimpse of it if there isn't any other better show on TV. Otherwise I may just eat dinner, go out, do a fanfic or play some game---most likely Dominion Wars. The whole Enterprise concept simply doesn't excite.

but nevertheless i will give it a chance--i wasn't too excited about DS9 eigther but it turned out pretty well.

I'd pay to watch that.

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

I will watch it until such a time it screws up and breaks Trek law (lore) completely, hence disassociating itself from the Star Trek universe. At that time I will stand up and say, 'that is not Star Trek'. I will then invoke the whimsical image of a wrathful Gene Roddenberry rising from the grave to firstly give Braga and Berman a swift kicking, and to then officialy de-canonize 'Enterprise'!!