posted
The magazine People is for the common audience, not for the specific audience. People who visit this board are an example of a specific audience, and those who don't visit this board are the common audience. Clear?
Anyway, they had a review of the new show 'Enterprise'. Here is the review.
Whenever I reflect on the original Star Trek-something I try to do at least once in a blue moon-I wonder what Spock would have been like as a woman. This latest Trek spinoff, an unspectalur prequel to the 1960s series that started the whole TV and movie franchise, satisfies my mild curiosity by introducing T'Pol (Jolene Bialock), a female Vulcan with pointy ears and pouty, glossy lips. T'Pol is second in command to Jonathan Archer (ex-Quantum Leap star Scott Bakula), the he-manly captain of the starship Enterprise NX-01 in the mid-22nd century. In the late September pilot T'Pol chided Archer for his "provincial attitudes" and "volatile nature", while he took critical note of her "Vulcan cynicism" and "repressed emotions". Is it me or do you sense sexual tension?
Luckily for UPN millions of Trekkers are deaf to the mockery of sceptics. Myself, I don't accept the ship's doctor (John Billingsley) as an alien just because he looks as if he has two snakes glued to his forehead. I felt cheated at the end of episode 2 when a race of androgynous beings with a 400-year life span was solely represented by a guy in a standard-issue alien makeup. And I have a "seen one, seen 'em all" attitude toward laser gun battles. To make new fans, show more enterprise.
Bottom line: Goes not so boldy
Terry Kelleher, People Magazine, Oct. 29, 2001, Tube, page 32
[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
posted
During some scenes in ENT, I really had this double feeling that they haven't got a clue what to do with the Star Trek franchise. They try to be different, yet they are so completely buried in Trek that they can't really come up with something fresh. The Star Trek universe has lost it's flexibility, and seems to be growing a bit old..
That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the episodes, however.
posted
And all I have to say in response to this review is: we're only four episodes into the series. Judging by the specific mentions of episode events, the reviewer only saw the pilot and "Fight or Flight." Need I remind anyone here how long it took TNG, DS9, or Voyager to hit their strides?
The reviewer has a point that the first few episodes have been on so-called safe ground. That's really needed somewhat to ground the series and establish fully the direction it's going to go. The latter half of this season will probably be more "enterprising" as the reviewer wishes to call it. I say give it a bit more time.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
I really doubt this reviewers credibility and understanding of the show when he uses phrases like 'as an alien just because he looks as if he has two snakes glued to his forehead'
I guess this just proves that it’s a common audience review. It’s just that it sounds like this reviewer’s just out to discredit Star Trek than make an objective review of it.
[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Kosa ]
-------------------- More human than human -Blade Runner
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: In the late September pilot T'Pol chided Archer for his "provincial attitudes" and "volatile nature", while he took critical note of her "Vulcan cynicism" and "repressed emotions". Is it me or do you sense sexual tension?
If there was sexual tension between me and everyone I ever said "You suck" too, I'd be some sort of bisexual Wilt Chamberlain.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
