posted
I have the impression that there are a couple of misunderstandings in the threads about "Enterprise", and I just wanted to make the following points clear.
First of all, I'm somewhat irritated that at several points the discussion was more about TV ratings and how Star Trek (Voyager) compares to other TV shows than about what *we the fans* expect. Of course, I wouldn't like to see that ratings (of *any* Trek show) go down, but I'm just not an expert in what the average relevant American TV viewer likes to see - this is not meant in a way that I'm looking down on the average viewer, but that actually no one is an "average viewer". Every person should have their own opinion on what they like to see, so please don't generalize the issue so often. Real life requires that a TV show fulfills the expectations of a broad public, but we're not Paramount or UPN who should be concerned about that. As for Voyager being better (or mostly worse) than other shows, I often have to hit the "Back" button to verify that I'm still in a Star Trek forum. I'm not blaming anyone for enjoying TV shows other than Star Trek, but what is the use of always pointing out that certain aspects of "Buffy" or "Farscape" are better? And please, dear Voyager bashers, don't always take it as granted that Voyager is bad.
Secondly, I admit that I have no evidence that "Enterprise" will be bad. I'm fully aware that my complaints may turn out premature. Those who have read my extensive criticism at EAS may understand it a bit better. My point is that there's nothing like a perfect premise for a show, but in the case of "Enterprise" the basic circumstances couldn't be worse. It's the wrong choice for fresh stories, and for extending my knowledge of and affection to the Star Trek Universe. I have the impression that the new series won't be able to offer me much new insight - as opposed to DS9 and Voyager where a a gate to a whole new world and time was opened. Tell me after the first "Enterprise" season if I was wrong about that.
Thirdly, and I can't make that clear enough, if Voyager already has its share of continuity errors, expect at least ten times as many from "Enterprise". I'm not speaking of the omnipresent arguments of Vulcans in Starfleet, ships named Enterprise or Klingon foreheads - I'm actually bored by that sort of discussion. Several people have sent me e-mails with exactly these questions, and I always told them that all these are only minor problems. The main problem will be the authors' "creativity". They need a new race / anomaly / technology? They will get it - maybe one every week. Multiply this with 170 expected episodes, and you'll get an idea of the mess. It's not single little errors but the credibility as a whole that will be impaired. Please don't blame me for being overly sensitive to errors or overly pessimistic, because this is exactly what will happen (and could have been avoided with a different premise).
This is not an attempt of persuasion, as I wrote, I just noticed that even those who are not fond of the concept themselves didn't really understand my points.
------------------ "There is an intelligent lifeform out on the other side of that television too." (Gene Roddenberry) Ex Astris Scientia
posted
Bravo, Bernd. You've restored my faith in people's ability to intelligently ponder the potential pitfalls of a new series without sinking into "BERMEN AN BRAGA R EVUL AND HATE GENE'S VISION AND ENTERPRIZE WILL SUCK BIG NADS! FARSCAPE RULZ!!"
------------------ "And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking." -DT on arguing with Omega, April 30
Actually they tend to annoy me with how failed much of Voyager's promise came to be. It may have been a cliched story (Gilligan's Island, Lost in Space) but it did have some originality they just killed and used rehashed plots instead, which I hope won't happen in Enterprise, but we're dealing with not even the start of the Federation. So just how many same old stories is this going to dish out and not muck continuty up majorly? They can't invent any new technology, or meet new aliens, or go anywhere really that interesting (let's face it, if it was really all that interesting in the first place, they'd still be going there in TOS/TNG-DS9 or at least make references to it). Assuming they don't wreck the entire universe's history in the first hour (Hello, Klingons!) and manage to make a full season without some major mistake, then I'd consider it a major success. I'm ranting but honestly, I think going backwards is more risky than going forwards. Still, I'll at least give it a try, (if) until the first major screw-up (If I see a Borg, Ferengi, Romulan or advanced phaser) I'm gone.
posted
Can I add, that the idea of a 'prequal' is not very original - especially not for Trek. And a 'prequal' that was set before TOS - or before TNG and after TOS has been suggested for many a year on the net... so why didn't Berman and Braga just brain storm for EVERY idea that they could think that they've read about and then not use them. Or another way... write down every OBVIOUS idea for a Trek series and not use them...
Although it can't be just the 'idea' of the series - cause Voyager never stuck - that much to their original idea... and DS9 had a pretty unoriginal idea - 'no starship, a spacestation' but hid had excellent characters and an interesting setting - a very original one (for a TV series) that it was a small band of Feds, getting in the middle of a just unoccupied planet stripped bear by its occupants who just live the other side of a light year away... Plus a wormhole to unknown destinations...
------------------ 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!
posted
Hey what if....this is an alternate reality Trek series?
Seriously having a original original Enterprise isn't bad. When someone thinks of the carrier Enterprise what do they think of? They think of the CVN-65 not the WW2 era one. When they think of the USS New Jersey, they think of the ship that is docked in New Jersey not the one that was sunk by bomb tests 80 years ago. When they think of the carrier Yorktown, they think of the one sunk in the Battle of Midway, not the Essex class one rnamed in honor of her during WW2. So what am I saying? I'm saying maybe the reason why there was no mention of the first Enterprise was because this Enterprise wasn't as famous as the 'second' (E-nil vs. E-nil-nil)
Did they give an actual date when the Feds. met the Klingons or did they say "it was over a hundred years ago" If thats so then we can't take that for granted because over a hundred years ago could mean either 101 years ago or 199 years ago. I'm over 10 but my exact age is 17. See what I'm saying?
If the show has good writing then I on't care about stupid contin. errors. If its bad then I'll be pissed because one: they decided on a prequel series and if they're going to mess the entire Trek universe it better be a good series. But when they mess up the writing then why do they even try the prequel series at all? Two: why in hell mess around with the Trek universe thats popular then mes it up with bad writing? They should have done a 25th century based series not a 22nd series one. Also why Enterprise? Why not USS Yorktown?
------------------ The whole concept of Survivor is get your average Joe and put him/her on the show and see how they react. Afterwards even though they did not win they make money by appearing on shows. There is no point in having to win a million dollars! They will make that amount in 2 months after appearing on 100 different shows!
[This message has been edited by Matrix (edited May 26, 2001).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
