You may ask, What do you consider to be a credible show?
These are credible shows:
MASH
Frasier
Farscape
Babylon Five

I can't imagine someone who has worn a dress to be a captain of a starship. While I like Bakula, and his light humorous style, I don't see him as the commanding type. He does not seem to have that character, or that voice. I just feel that Bakula is being put into this series for his name recognition. The guy is going to get stiff, and then play the role like a Sinclair clone (first Babylon 5 captain.)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Please state what the hell a credible show is. Thank you!

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

I suppose I would define a show as credible where there is strong consistency in the history, the characters, the technology, and the like. Though there are a few flaws, as in Frasier, where in the early years Martin said that he didn't have a brother and, later, we-the audience-learned that he has a brother, these flaws can be explained. In this instance, Martin could have been expressing an opinion about his brother and his two sons weren't disputing his opinion.

The problem with Star Trek is that the world of these characters is not consistent. There are many examples which have been the subject of disputes found on this board and others. You know the disputes as well as I do. And I can say, after having seen the majority of the franchise, that I don't believe in this world.

Or another way of saying this-the fictional world has to be as real as the real world for the audience to believe. In our real world, there are consistences. The Supreme Court in 2000 ruled in favor of Gov. Bush. President Bush '43 is a friend of the oil companies. Our space program consists of 4 shuttles, dozens of satellites and space probes, and a space station. In the fictional world, there has to be consistencies. Let's use MASH. The characters are surgeons in a war. The main character is Hawkeye, a very good surgeon from Cabot Cove, Maine. Their technology was the medical equipment found at the base, the transport vehicles used to transport the wounded and the surgeons, etc. The writers in 11 years created very little mistakes-the wrong state for Corporal Potter, wrong issues for magazines, etc. This is remarkable and accounts for why the show is credible.

And I think this last point is very important. The writers and producers of the four shows I mentioned attempted to create a world that, as it evolved, stayed true to the facts and situations of the characters. They genuinely cared about their characters and the audience came to care for those characters.

There is a difference of perception between the fans and the studio. What is the difference?
Fans see the whole franchise as a realized world with characters that have adventures in space. These characters have a psychological and personal background in a society with a history and technology that arose as an effect of that history.

The studio, however, perceives the franchise as 600 plus episodes that are a source of revenue. The studio doesn't see the whole franchise as a realized world. Instead, the studio perceives the franchise as being in the episodic tradition established by tv in the 50s. Elements-such as characters, locations, time period-carry over from episode to episode. And for purposes of script, the writers may change details that were established in earlier episodes. And the infamous Reset Button is always present at the end of an episode.

From the available data, the studio perception will be guiding the fifth Star Trek series.

The question then is,
Do you agree with the fan perception, or the studio perception? If you agree with the fan's perception, you will be opposed to the show. If you support the studio's perception, then you may give the show a chance. The show has thus divided the Star Trek base.

I will watch the show with the expection that I am watching an episodic show with the earlier stated details-changing details, reset buttons, etc.-and not anything else.

I'll take the unconventional step of falling back on free-market economics. UPN is in fairly serious shit. ST9 did pretty poorly. Enterprise must do well or else heads will roll. How else can a show be profitable if it doesn't attract an audience? Therefore, methinks B 'n B will be quite careful to put together something that's high-quality. TPTB have the numbers in front of them all day long. They know better than anyone why the show must be a success.

When I see Picard preparing to fire phasers, I don't have images of a gay interior decorator jumping all around. Maybe it's because you don't know well enough to seperate one actors' roles from another, but, uh, you're the only person who seems to have this problem ...

Paramount is taking a long look at this series. They've already been over Berman's shoulder -- they nixed quite a few show concepts before he came up with Enterprise. Looks like TPTB's PTB will be making themselves known ... (although, who knows if that's a good thing ... or a bad thing?)

I'm willing to give it a shot. Berman is pretty much responsible for the last four seasons of TNG and DS9, and Braga did write some good eps for TNG -- Parallels among 'em -- so I'm hoping they can get of Voyager gear and into Enterprise gear, and if they can, I think we'll all be very happy.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Uh ... do you do a lot of 'net surfing? Because I happen to know a large fanbase who is in FAVOR of a prequel series.

Frankly, I don't see why everyone's so upset about it. Sounds like the people against the premise of Enterprise need to yank the stick out of their ass. What does it contradict ... ?

The series takes place before Starfleet is created, so, hey, Kirk's E is still the first in Starfleet ...

Since it's not Starfleet, what's the problem with T'Pau serving on the ship? Especially since she's got a Vulcan rank?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Bakula on the other hand, is coming into the series, not out of it. He may have a boyish charm but does he have "command presence"?

Also you give too much credit to Berman and Braga. DS9 debuted with over 18.8 in ratings and ended with just over 5, with the low fours on the final episodes. Voyager likewise debuted with ratings nearly 20, but now its final episodes could only get just over 3 at the average. That's a massive bleeding of the fan base. Out of five people who watched TNG at the start of the decade, four no longer watches Star Trek at the end of the decade.

I am not saying not to watch this---every SF show should be encouraged, but people are allowed to voice their skepticism. Most particularly, that its the producers, and the formula or format that may be the problem, not the timeline.

And, Crobato, I don't judge a TV show's merits by it's ratings. DS9 was one of the best TV shows produced -- in my opinion, the best Trek ever produced. But not many people watched it. Does that make it less of a success? Does that lesson Berman's contribution to it? You know, Wonder Boys didn't do that well in theatres ... by your way of thinking, Michael Douglas must be a lousy actor.

Targetemployee: believe it or not, the vast majority of fans don't give a rats ass about the minor discrepancies between Enterprise and TOS, and they don't care if the Eugenics Wars took place in 1996, or 2045.

The vast majority of fans will be very happy with a well-written TV show, and maybe, just maybe, some of you people out there should stop hating episodes or movies because the bridge set is too big to fit the exterior model! I mean, THAT'S nitpicking!!!

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Tonight I was watching "Olympia" by a noted German artist from 1936. As I watched the film, I came to understand the German people of that year. There were many who passionate about Nazism. And there were many who were complacent about Nazism. And there were very few who complained about Nazism. My point, is this.

We fans are divided into groups-those who are passionate about ST, those who are complacent about ST, and those who are 'complainers' and want to see a change. The producers want and will get the passionate and complacent fans. They will have a difficulty with getting the 'complainers'.

I was a passionate fan many years ago. I bought the required reading, made lists of ST items, and even considered joining a club. Then as I got older I became a complacent fan. I accepted what I got and watch the show regularly. About two years ago, I was a 'complainer'. I didn't like Voyager for I felt the show wasn't credible and this caused me to question the rest of Star Trek. I began to analyse ST and I saw that the world that I liked many years before was not credible. And I voiced this on this board and others. And I ran into a volley demanding to know who I was to think this way and questioning my connection to the fan base. Reading these responses tonight to three simple responses written by me and analysing the responses to other threads, I came to believe that there was a prejudice against certain beliefs in the fan base. This has pushed me further away.

If you don't want to hear from me, either say so or don't read a response I write.

And further more, I am not you. I don't spend hours doing ST. I spend my time in the reading of the Talmud, I spend my time with family and friends, and working. And I am glad not to be you.

Will I be watching the fifth series?
No.

Paramount liked TNG a lot. It essentially built Paramount's TV arm. It made a hell of a lot of money for them. But TNG wasn't loved because it was science fiction that pulled in the fanboys. It was a high-quality and insightful drama that was popular with a largish segment of the population, that being men and women of most age groups, generally well-educated, and in the hunt for thoughtful and captivating television.

Then as Voyager kicked off on UPN, the cheap-black-comedies-and-cheezy-actionfest network, Voyager couldn't take the above demographics and hang onto them. 21 million viewers for the premiere, and 12 months later we were down to a quarter of that. The aforementioned segment of the population felt that Voyager couldn't live up to TNG's ability to be thought -provoking. In the early 90s, there really were no other really good dramas on TV, but by the late 90s we had shows like Law & Order and Homicide and the whole kit and caboodle to compete with Trek for this same group of smart TV watchers who want smart TV. And Voyager's producers were content to keep Voyager as the "lighter" Trek, and so the hordes left it, not for shows like Xena and Babylon 5, which is a common excuse for declining ratings ("There's more scifi on TV than 1987") but to shows like L&O, ER (before it got too derivative and soapish), and today to shows like The West Wing and The Sopranos. Even Buffy taps into this demographic today as much as Voyager does.

Simple business sense shows that Trek must be positioned back in such a way as attract these good Trek-watching folks who don't spend their lives on the web bitching and whining about turbolift placement but instead care mainly about creative writing and good acting. And all the comments from Rick Berman so far seem to indicate that both Trek X and Enterprise are doing exactly this. They've conceded that Voyager wasn't the sort of show that was meant to bring in those viewers, but rather than overhaul Voyager they've stuck it out and waited until there's a fresh start to fix things.

If the fans who post on TrekWeb's forums made the show, it might keep track of continuity religiously and have entire episodes dedicated to the Klingon forehead, but it would suck absolute nads and get a 2.0 rating. Take your pick.

Paramount are willing to pour millions into Berman and Braga's attempts to revitalize Trek. Apparently they think that the two of them can do it. And who are we to second-guess them? It's Paramount's money on the line here, not to mention the reputation of the Trek franchise. If Enterprise tanks, then anything that Paramount slaps the label "Star Trek" on will pretty much be a joke to the general public for years to come. They seem convinced that B & B will produce a show that will give them a far better return on their investment than Voyager did, or else this show wouldn't be made. And I can't see a show of lesser or equal quality to Voyager giving them that return. So, by process of elimination, Paramount is therefore expecting a show of better quality than Voyager.

Will it be? I'll wait and see.

Frankly I don't like Michael Douglas as an actor.

Yes, DS9 may also be the best Trek ever, but that is your opinion. There are many who considers it a major deviation from Trek. Being good is not good enough in show business. There are many, many good SF shows that were on TV and they didn't last. I remember one show that was certainly running circles around DS9 in quality and that was Space Above and Beyond. Furthermore, DS9 suffered creatively when it was compared to Babylon 5, which I certainly think is far more memorable of the two. (If TOS was the SF-TV cult of the seventies, B5 is now the new SFTV cult of the new 21st century---after the X-Files, which is THE SF show of the nineties).

Trek is a very expensive show to make and it needs ratings, ratings, ratings. What has been embarrassing is that shows like B5 and Farscape could produce something better for a lesser budget. Maybe you don't give a rat's ass about ratings, but VIACOM does. Sorry to wake you up, but they're not an institution of charity.