posted
Crobato, for someone who thinks guys here say "bullshit" to talk tough, it seems to have grown on you too. That, and "asshole". So what's it gonna be? Moral guardian or schoolyard slugger? It's not wise to jump between the two, it kind of weakens your sincerity.
I don't like Bakula (although the name is cool) but I think the era they will move around in does have some promise. If the producers couldn't give us a break from Trek altogether for a while, like some of us wished, they will at least give us a break from 2376-politics and terrain.
JfK: Red Quacker? Well, if it by some strange twist of fate would be him, at least he has started discussing proper Trek, and that's more than you could say for his earlier adventures.
------------------ "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."
"You want to support your contention that half the fanbase thinks it sucks? I know a lot of old timers -- grew up on TOS -- who love the idea. At least, a lot more than VOYAGER ... "
Oh yeah. Why don't you prove your own claim? I know some old timers who absolutely hate the idea---one more opportunity to piss on the TOS legacy.
Schneider ran a poll, and the results from a few hundred already indicate that most are either only lukewarm or against the idea. Not much of a picture of enthusiasm. Go to his website.
"There is life beyond Star Trek. No, honestly, there is."
And have you found it yet?
"Ahhh, as if we needed more proof of your immaturity, here's this gem. "
Oh really. Have you seen your statements so far, heh Jeff? Show me more of your hypocrisy.
"You know what? Your grammar is really bad, too. Well, see, Crobato, here's the thing. TPTB know that they don't have the viewers -- which is why they've got to lure them back: not with fancy SFX, or hot chicks in little clothing, but with good stories."
Oh puhleeze. They knew that long ago. You don't have a grasp on reality. It was TPTB who advocated chicks and overemphasixed fancy FX into Trek in the first place. You don't get it do you? When will your limited IQ learn? You don't resolve a problem till you cut heads. You don't resolve a problem without removing the root and the cause. People do not change spots. The cause is bad producers make a bad show. So take out the producers. Enterprise now appears to have the potential for a fancy FX babewatch in space show given current trends.
"And believe me, the majority of fans don't give a hoot about if FC with the Klingons happened to your version of events, or earlier. Trust me on this."
Yeah right. That's because they won't be tuning into it anyway. Don;'t you get it into your limited cranium? Fans *LEFT* past tense.
"So, TNG, DS9, and VOY all suck, then? Because, you know, they've ALL violated TOS continuity at SOME point ... "
Which does not constitute an excuse or does not make it right. The fact that it is done, does not make things right. Another person with situational ethics.
"Not really. You've got a Bajoran military officer serving in a Starfleet chain of command. "
Excuse me idiot. She does not have any authority outside of the Defiant or DS9. She is not part of the regular Starfleet chain of command until the last few shows---and there was good reason why she had to be Star Fleet.
"Well, then, why don't you use "cut" and "paste" and show me the correct post, eh? "
I already did, Mister visually challenged.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think they just want to skirt that continuity issue by making it pre Fed so it won't violate continuity in letter. But it already violates it by intention and in common sense. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't. "
Apparently you don't have common sense either.
Oh are you saying there ain't any more Vulcans in pre Fed and early Fed starships because they don't *want* to be in it? More bullshit arguments.
"my argument is not bullshit. You say that because you don't have a refuting argument. "
Oh really? Now you have lowered yourself to moron status. I refuted your arguments, and see nothing but more bullshit apologism from you. Even a simple fact as the difference of an exchange program and a long term commission eludes you.
Exactly. I am not the one vehemently defending it, or evangelizing it, or to even endure watching it. As a matter of fact, what I'm pointing is more of the state of a franchise and a company. Those are a lot more serious matters. Apparently it just breaks Jeff's heart here for people not to watch the show.
posted
You're the one engaged in some sort of twisted holy crusade to expose the villanous "Braga Apologists." This isn't gnostic metaphysics. It's Star Trek, a highly entertaining adventure drama available on finer television sets around the globe.
At any rate, in my quasi-official position as board nice person (A position that is, I should add, only available via self-appointment.), I think everyone should take a nice long bath that includes bubbles and fancy salts, if possible, or go outside and watch the sunset, if not. I can almost guarantee that you will feel three hundred percent better afterwards, and we can all come back and discuss the pros and cons of Enterprise like the charming and beautiful people we are.
posted
First off, crobato, calm down. I'm not flaming you, Jeff isn't, but you're taking this far too personally. We simply take issue with your attitude towards the apparent "sanctity" of a television show, a feeling that is held to some extent held by very few other people on the net that is stirring up an embarressingly ignorant storm of protest against a show that nobody has seen a still shot of, let alone a second of footage.
Point the first: Star Trek has always had excessive sexuality. Gene was a horny little man. He wanted Troi to have four breasts, for crying out loud, until DC Fontana talked him down just a few days before TNG began filming. Ms. Blalock could wear a big purple smock that is as sexual as Barbara Walters' underwear for all we know. Plenty of attractive female actresses who are quite competent dramatists have posed in Maxim. To hijack a cliche, "don't hate her because she's beautiful."
Furthermore, you're delusional if you don't accept the cold hard fact that the sexuality of 90% of actresses under 35 is pumped up on film and television. Every show does this, both Trek and otherwise, and this has always been true. Actresses are used to it. It's a reality of their work they accept. Kira wore fairly heavy makeup and high heels; Troi a scoop-necked dress etc. etc. While personally I thought Seven of Nine went a bit too far, if Ms. Blalock is easy on the eyes as well as dramatically compelling, who's complaining?
Now, if she sits on the bridge in a thong bikini and can't act worth a damn, then let their be complaint. But second-guessing the casting people and assuming the producers are attempting to gain viewers through similar techniques as the WWF is a form of unfounded paranoia.
Point the second: I must take issue with being labelled a Berman apologist. Nazis have apologists. The Khmer Rouge has apologists. Don't you dare assume I'm standing up for the producers because I loved every single minute of Voyager to death, or that I'll stand up for the producers because that's just what I do. I form opinions on an issue by issue basis, and right now I am of the opinion that valuing continuity to the point where it strangles a writer's ability to tell a good story is unfounded.
Unlike you, I'd like to believe I have something of a grasp of the challenges these guys face in creating original television when so many hours have already been done. Berman and Braga have made more than there share of the mistakes, but they've also put together a good chunk of the absolute best Star Trek ever put on screen. You or I or any of the people you define as "true fans" are not shareholders in the franchise of Trek. THEY DON'T OWE US ANYTHING. All they are reposible for is putting together 26 hours of television a year that will entertain enough people to pay the advertisers. Long ago Star Trek could have turned into space battles and fisticuffs and copious sex in an effort to get every viewer and their dog watching the show. But they've done, in my opinion at least, a reasonable job of sticking to Roddenberry's vision through thick and thin. I think Deep Space Nine was an excellent show and I'm a little irritated that it didn't hang onto a broader audience than it did. Voyager clearly didn't hang on to a broad audience because it was substandard in places and the fact that three quarters of the audience left the show is testament to that. The suits know that and producers know that. In an interview last week Braga conceded that Voyager failed to live up to TNG's expectations and he was sorry that happened, but nevertheless Berman and he and Biller nursed the show along and it completed its run as a sort of Star Trek Lite. Being in the industry, they know better than anyone that the fanbase the show lost was not hyperchondriac fanboys like yourself who got tired of seeing episodes like "Future's End" not taking place in the burnt-out-rubble of the Eugenics Wars and therefore went off to see "quality" sci-fi like Herc, Xena, B5, Farscape ad shittium. They know that most of the 75% drop was people who got sick of boring writing and technobabble and predictable endings and went off to watch Law and Order and The West Wing. And they want them back. And the network wants them back. So, believe it or not, there have been several attempts to make Enterprise more mainstream:
Moving the series into a timeframe where technobabble is less prevalent and the characters are more likely to react in a more present-day way
Switching the timeslot so it no longer lines up against The West Wing, which is exactly the sort of show that's holding down a lot of ex-TNG fans.
Launching a heavy marketing campaign directed specifically at getting the word out to the lost fans.
If, as you assert, the 4 of the 5 fans who stopped watching the show did so because of continuity inconsistencies, then we must live in a very scary world. If there are 16 million people out there who hold continuity with religious ferverence as you do, I don't think I want to step outside.
Point the third: You speak at great length that accidental or intentional compromisations of TOS's continuity are a slap in the face of Roddenberry. I don't think this is quite so. Firstly, Roddenberry himself was no angel when it came to keeping his own work consistent. He certainly never made any great statements about the importance of continuity, or at least I've never read of any. What is certain, however, is that Roddenberry desperately wanted Star Trek to be original, exciting, and a worthy forum for expressing viewpoints to the masses. I think Gene would care more about creating an original, exciting series that returns to using science fiction as an effective medium of invoking thought about important issues and bringing such thought to willing viewers everywhere.
You're flogging a rather decomposed horse if you adhere to the old "Berman is making Roddenberry spin in his grave" (urn, actually) and use continuity errors to back this up.
------------------ "And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking." -DT on arguing with Omega, April 30
"Unlike you, I'd like to believe I have something of a grasp of the challenges these guys face in creating original television when so many hours have already been done. Berman and Braga have made more than there share of the mistakes, but they've also put together a good chunk of the absolute best Star Trek ever put on screen. "
The problem of this is that they have outlived their welcome. Maybe you have not seen other message boards. Every board that had a topic of Star Trek would almost always say how tired they are of Berman and Braga. The confidence in their production is little. They have done some good work but they also did a lot of shitty work, and as an average, that puts down the entire franchise. It's time for them to go. I also think they have made Trek such a personal playground that most of producers from Biller to Piller couldn't stay any longer. There is simply no check to their abuses.
Again, its time for them to go.
". But they've done, in my opinion at least, a reasonable job of sticking to Roddenberry's vision through thick and thin. "
I truly question that they did so, assuming of course that Roddenberry had a valid vision for present day Trek. (No one can pretend to know Roddenberry's real vision given how Earth FC and Andromeda are such strong anti-Utopian concepts.) But no one honestly think Berman and Braga is sticking to Roddenberry's vision.
"They know that most of the 75% drop was people who got sick of boring writing and technobabble and predictable endings and went off to watch Law and Order and The West Wing. And they want them back. "
I honestly don't think West Wing and Law and Order have the same audience as Star Trek. SF audiences tend to follow shows regardless of their time slot so long it's reasonable convenient. It's only the casual viewer that picks shows based on what's showing.
I doubt that West Wing watchers are TNG fans (I hate Martin Sheen or any show that has a Sheen in it, except for Emilio.)
In the end, I don't even think Braga and Berman don't know the hell what's wrong with their franchise.
The point is, Star Trek isn't special. Enterprise is not in any sense, a special starship that Andromeda, Lexx or Moya or the Taelon mothership could be. Making it a 22nd starship does not increase it's appeal any more. Grittier, less techy shows have been done to death already, from Space Above and Beyond to Babylon 5. Enterprise is simply revisting what people had done already.
It is simply not an innovative show.
Technobabble isn't solved by changing the time era. It is solved by creative discipline. Even in the 22nd century, it's easy to technobabble to come in and the prevailing excuse for that is that it may come from aliens.
Every SF and fantasy show has what is called its technology or fantasy mythos. This is what makes them distinctive. Earth FC has this Taelon Energy. Star Wars has the Force. Lord of the Rings, has the Rings of Mordor. Stargate SG1 has the Stargate. They are no more, no less fantastic than Star Trek's mythological technology.
Science Fiction is *SCIENCE* fiction. It is not a soap opera or character drama with starships. Science fiction is about the consequence of technology on human life and society. The best show on this on TV right now is clearly, the Outer Limits. Cutting technology or the potential of technology out from science fiction isn't science fiction. It's another soap opera in space. If Braga and Berman has a problem with the proper uses of science and technology in fiction, then it's time for them for them to get out. We don't watch Science fiction to have technology solve problems, we watch science fiction create these problems.
"What is certain, however, is that Roddenberry desperately wanted Star Trek to be original, exciting, and a worthy forum for expressing viewpoints to the masses. I think Gene would care more about creating an original, exciting series that returns to using science fiction as an effective medium of invoking thought about important issues and bringing such thought to willing viewers everywhere. "
They always say that with every new Trek show that came, for every season of those shows.
The result is always the same.
Given those statements, it seems instead that Earth FC and Andromeda had done a better job, particularly on the last statement. Nobody seriously thinks that Paramount is keeping Roddenberry's vision alive in any sense with the latest Trek shows.
People left Trek because it has become bland and boring relative to other SF shows. There isn't anything innovative about Enterprise. It's clearly a brand name thing. Where in any part of Enterprise's premise you can honestly say it's bold, not relative to the decaying Trek franchise, but to the Science Fiction world in general.
Enterprise is been there, been that. You don't understand what I truly mean being there. It's not about the nearby cartography of the early Federation and what so ever aliens are in there. It's not about exploring new star systems.
It is about concepts. Enterprise does not bring any innovative concept to science fiction. Another starship without an interesting premise, without uniqueness, without specialty. At least shows like Farscape and Andromeda brought something new to table. X-Files brought something new. Babylon 5 brought something new. Stargate brought something new. Buffy brought something new. The Outer Limits brought something new. Enterprise bring us pointy ears once again. Oh boy.
Name what Enterprise is new about. Less technobabble? That's not something new. Practically most shows do this already. It's only the real fanboys who want to know how people meet Vulcans and Klingons and such---and it's also the same fanboys who will get pissed off if there's problems with continuity. The West Wing and Law and Order watcher isn't interested about the birth of the Federation or how the hell people met Klingons. Don't even think that Enterprise would grap the West Wing viewer. The West Wing viewer probably has no interest at another space ship show.
Braga's comments only serve to show how out of touch he really is. And how out of touch many remaining Trek fans are, which I have to say from your comments, would include you.
You don't see Star Wars fans, B5 fans, Stargate, Farscape fans and X-Files fans complain about breaking continuity much do you? These shows maintain story quality with continuity. If a franchise has to break continuity to get better stories, there is something sickly wrong about it in the first place. When fans complain about continuity issues in such an extent on Trek--yet something we almost never see on other SF and fantasy shows---it shows how discredible the franchise has become. Continuity bitching and technobabble are actually symptoms relating to the same and much larger problem---the creative bankruptcy of the show's producers.
There is nothing I have seen about this show that the Paramount and the producers has satisfactorily dealt with this problem. The show in absolute terms, isn't innovative, original, and special in any sense. It lacks a defining quality. The whole idea of things like "first meeting with Klingons" are what it takes to get old fans back is totally absurd. That's fanboy stuff. There's nothing there an mainstream or general SF fan would like. It's like assuming they still have a thing for Trek. Most probably not---they may have a much greater interest on another show.
Don't underestimate or overestimate my loyalty to the Trek franchise. The reality is, I have none. I can easily switch to any SF show I want and I watch a good deal many.
Breaking continuity for a better story. yeah right. The whole point of it, if a show has to rely on devices like this, it's not really worth watching.
I think you bring up some reasonable points in your previous post. I still disagree with a few, however.
Obviously, it's still guesswork for all of us exactly what form the new show will take. However, I don't think it will indeed be a guided tour of the Star Trek universe, introducing the audience to one "new" race and technology after another. I think it will be more focussed on what it's like to be a human in a galaxy full of things that outscale humanity by powers of ten. This could very well be wishful thinking on my part, and I can make no promises that is what the premise will produce. As it's been said many times before, a great concept can have poor execution and vice versa. But, IMHO, the aforementioned sort of thing when combined with top-grade writing is the sort of show that can both appeal to any well-educated thoughtful viewer, most of whom are watching, by my reckoning, L&O, NYPDB, TWW and their ilk, not Farscape and Babylon 5 reruns. Perhaps the only genre show that remotely taps into the former TNG fanbase these days is Buffy, while a few years ago the X-Files did so as well (although the fans have again moved onto greener and higher-quality pastures.)
Trek isn't a democracy, nor are any of us shareholders in the franchise who have right to go to the board of governors and demand results. Paramount wants to make money with Trek, and thus far has resisted quick-fixes of pumping up the explosions and skin in an effort to bring in the pretty sizable demos that watch Survivor for the sole purpose of seeing Elisabeth Filarski bend over or watch Stone Cold Steve Austin clothesline a butt-ugly ex-stripper in a plastic thong. Instead they're eyeing the aforementioned TNG refugees as the magic bullet that will bring up the ratings and therefore the advertising revenue. In the entirety of TNG, how often did the Enterprise fire its phasers? Maybe a dozen of times, tops. And yet the general public, which everyone arrogantly assumes are not intelligent enough to enjoy science fiction, remained enthralled right up until "All Good Things...". Enterprise won't need cheap thrills to bring in the viewers TPTB want, it'll need good writing. And since we don't know the writing staff yet, we can't accurately judge if this is possible. And even once we know the writing staff and look at their past work, we'll still be unable to come up with a decent prediction of how good the writing will be, since writers can swing from outstanding to mediocre in the blink of an eye.
I, personally don't like B5 all that much, nor do I know too many people who do aside from the harder-core element online who claim to. That's a matter of personal taste, and if people want to enjoy a show I don't, then fine. The same goes for Farscape. I have no problems "sharing" my show with anyone who finds it interesting, whether they also watch B5 or Buffy or even Survivor. My only wish is that the show isn't intentionally dumbed down to attract the neo-Phillistine Big Brother/WWF/Two guys and a girl-watching hordes. But if people think Trek is making itself too accessible to the icky people-who-don't-ever-go-to-conventions and can't-name-off-hand-when-the-Eugenics-Wars-took-place, then they should by all means go and watch "cult" shows exclusively. Let the public have Bread & Roddenberry, and let them enjoy it, and try to keep continuity intact, but don't expect the producers run through the streets flagellating themselves if once in a while continuity takes a nick. Every incarnation of Star Trek has scratched continuity, as has every writer. If one cares about the imaginary universe of Star Trek, as I do, then we'll work around the mistakes and come up with alternate explanations like we always do.
------------------ "And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking." -DT on arguing with Omega, April 30
[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited May 20, 2001).]
posted
crobato: "Science fiction is about the consequence of technology on human life and society."
That's one of the more narrowminded interpretations of the genre I've heard. "Mad Max" is sci-fi. Dystopian and utopian movies are sci-fi. It could be about everyone going and living in huts in the woods, not necessarily after WWIII. Science doesn't mean technology, it means development, investigation and exploration, among other things. It doesn't have to do anything with technology, and neither does its fiction. You say you've watched "Outer limits", have you not understood this? Most people fantazise that we'll have better technology in 50 years or 200 years, and so many future sci-fi movies have much new technology, but that isn't the start and end of it.
------------------ "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."
Mad Max doesn't center around science. It's an action movie set on a post nuclear war scenario. It's a futuristic fantasy.
Utopian movies are sci-fi, because utopia is a consequence of technological development. So is dystopian movies, as dystopia tends to a society affected by technological exaggeration. Why don't you really watch enough of the Outer Limits? A lot of it deal with the social consequences and implications of science and technology.
So called Existential science fiction are often and preferably referred to as speculative fiction. The term speculative fiction has been increasingly been used among writers.
posted
"Utopia is a consequence of technological development. So is dystopian movies, as dystopia tends to a society affected by technological exaggeration."
Is this straight from your own manifesto? The technological element is optional, not critical, to utopian and dystopian science fiction.
...and now this thread is dead. *sigh*
------------------ "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."
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic