http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/474/474521p1.html
:(
I hope this doesn't pan out. It's just getting good :mad:
Printable View
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/474/474521p1.html
:(
I hope this doesn't pan out. It's just getting good :mad:
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
I think its too soon to say. The story in question mentions Jake 2.0 which, despite what the story said, was renewed for a second season according to other sources.
Well, it might be worth many of the Enterprise Bashers to take a step back and consider.
TNG and the Movies only really happened because of the massive fan support for the Original Series...
Like it or Loathe it, the facts are clear. if nobody had cared, if the series had bombed. None of the later tTreks would ever have happened.
The generic fan response, is quite well known. Amongst the normal population of non-trekkies, among whom I spend a great deal of my time. The opinion is that Enterprise is OK... Not great, and nothing to go out of your way for... And that those who have strong feelings about the show (either way) are the nerdy fans.
So it has not really won over a legion of new fans.
And has divided the established fans, but thats OK, it wasn't made for us...
If however the show does get canned mid season... that will be considered to be a strike against it. In an industry that runs a 'one strike and your finished' system.
If Enterprise gets cancelled under these current conditions, the chances are... That will be the end of Trek. All future Trek... No coming back in 10-30 years for another resurgence with a new show... It'll be all over...
And we will only have ourselves to blame.
So bad Trek is better than no Trek? :(
Sorry, I don't agree at all.Ummmm...then who was it made for?Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Gurden
So it has not really won over a legion of new fans.
And has divided the established fans, but thats OK, it wasn't made for us...
Let's stop dancing around the issue; ENT is a failure on several fronts for a number of reasons. Even the much-maligned VOY had roughly twice the viewership of ENT!
Trek is a huge cash cow for Viacom, even as it limps along into the sunset. The sooner ENT dies the sooner the franchise can withdraw, lick its wounds, and retool. Trek will return; at the end of the day its all about money and you don't bury an established franchise like Trek to never return. Your scare tactics are way off the mark, Dan, IMO.
Send a signal that ENT isn't acceptible, that the fans want better and that we're not willing to just "make do" with whatever Viacom slaps on the screen with "Star Trek" in the title.
The sooner ENT dies, the better.
I've defended Enterprise on many occasions. And I liked the first two seasons quite a bit. But this season I've become one of the "lost" viewers. To be honest the Expanse storyline kinda bores me. I didn't rant and rave on the internet, I just slowly stopped watching. Still catch an occasional episode - actually enjoyed the Andorian one last week but was bored to tears by the time travel one around Thanksgiving (late November).
No one on the internet convinced me to stop watching. I just got bored. Is that the fault of bashers? Does that make me one?
I'm no defender of ENT. I completely concur with Don M. about "whatever Viacom chooses to slap on the screen". I have been offended by the series' cloying desperation to be popular since Season 1. However, the past 3 weeks have proven that the series *can* (when it wants to) put out some worthwhile stories. And, furthemore, if UPN cancels ENT...what are they left with?? I am stunned by the trend in networks to cancel *every* marginal series. The most disgusting is FOX canceling FIREFLY along with pretty much every other non-reality new show last season.
My bet is that UPN keeps ENT because without it the network is nothing but wrestling and a string of awful sitcoms. Sadly, ENT is their "prestige" show.
I'm going to have to side with Don on this one. Scare tactics and "Support Trek or it'll end forever" notwithstanding, the creative team behind ENT has cast the fundamental premise to the Star Trek universe - and I'm not just talking one episode, series, or movie here; the universe - aside. As William Shatner stated in a recent interview alluded to on these boards, the nature of the franchise at its most successful was colorful characters engaged in meaningful conflict with the world around them, each other and themselves.
This is something that Rick Berman appears to have forgotten in his quest to protect the castle's ramparts rather than expanding the realm. I looked over that IGN Filmforce interview with Ron Moore very carefully, and one thing that struck me was how often the words "Rick Berman" and "cautious" and "conservative" were linked. DS9's success, Moore indicated, may largely have been because it was the orphan child in Berman's cinematic erector set; the writers were given an essentially free hand to create new rules and break old ones while Berman toyed with his "masterpiece".
ENT, from what I've seen of it and what those who have followed its path for the last three years have told me, is a manifestation of the absolute worst of Berman's instincts coming to the fore. Instead of attempting to build on the vision that others had shown could be realized with the Star Trek format, and creating a future with it, ENT has instead retreated into the past; one that's already been written, and is therefore by definition hobbled in the kind of exciting, push-it-to-the-limit stories it can tell. Well, as U2 has stated in one of my favorite songs of theirs, "You glorify your past when your future dries up." Don't rock the boat, don't take chances, don't take any unnecessary risks; play it safe and we'll all make it through okay.
TOS achieved what it did because it largely refused to play by the rules of the game - the only thing Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon and Dorothy Fontana were concerned about at that point was telling a Good Fricking Story. I honestly believe it was this that Bjo Trimble, et al recognized and fought to save - the hope of something better coming out of this, and what it could become, rather than the fear of what would happen if it were allowed to die. This, I feel, is the essential line of demarcation between the series, and why one deserved to be fought for while the other - at least in my humble opinion - is best consigned to oblivion.
I think we can all agree that, technically speaking, all modern Trek shows (TNG through ENT) are shining examples (cinematography, make-up, hair, props, art direction, etc.) of the film-making craft and features work from the best in the business. I think one of the reasons Star Trek hasn't been given a rest is that, once the art and production team is disbanded, they'll find other work and it will be nigh-impossible to put that team together again or to even get key personnel (Westmore for make-up; Okuda for art and graphics) to back to work when needed.
What I think people are referring to is the writing. In regards to the writing:
The first two seasons of TNG were bland but the show got better.
The first two seasons of DS9 were bland but the show got better.
While VOY never found its focus, there were a number of excellent stories told during its run.
And, returning to tradition, the first two seasons of ENT were bland but the show is getting better.
And, I'm sorry, but the two archtypical examples of the worst writing in the Trek universe falls under the aegis of the Original Series: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and the TOS episode "Spock's Brain."
So, it can't be said that Enterprise is the nadir of the Trek universe when the Original Series itself holds that distinction.
You're preaching to the choir, Don Mappin.
Well, I was always under the impression that it was made for a newer, younger audience, the under 30's with greatest disposable income, and thus better able to support the cash cow, rather than the older group who while they may have a greater income, have greater responsibilities for it (mortgages, children, etc)...Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
So bad Trek is better than no Trek? :(
Sorry, I don't agree at all.Ummmm...then who was it made for?
*Snip*
Your scare tactics are way off the mark, Dan, IMO.
Send a signal that ENT isn't acceptible, that the fans want better and that we're not willing to just "make do" with whatever Viacom slaps on the screen with "Star Trek" in the title.
*Snip*
As far scare tactics? I hope I am wrong... But my belief is that if the show fails as terribly as peolpe Want it to fail... That will send the wrong message to TPTB, and dry up much of the funding that would support future expansion?
Would that really end in no Trek ever again? Well, thats one way it might go. But you are right... One should never say never...
As for sending a signal... Well, I have been a fairly vocal opponant of the Enterprise bashers. But that is purely due to the many immature, lunatic and vicious rants posted on the internet... By people who have taken the new direction as a personal insult, or worse... Although I am far less vocal when faced with a well thought out and reasoned arguement, rather than a rant for rants sake... For myself I stopped watching Enterprise quite some time ago... The last episode I went out of my way to watch was 'Stigma' which was purely for the purposes of writing the Psionics ICON material...
I have found the show to be mostly bland and repetative... Taking older established stories and chucking a Trek gloss on them... Take for instance Yesterday, when UK TV played 'Con Air' twice, once mid afternoon on Enterprise (cannot even remember the episode name), and then again for Late Night TV with the film itself...
Thats my message. If given a bland and boring product, I'll just not watch it. But I do not see the need to vent my spleen at anyone about it...
Is Bad Trek better than No Trek? No. But I fear that we may be doing more harm than good, and end up with No Trek at all. And that is something that I do not want.
We fans are a resiliant lot.
When years of petitioning went unrewarded, we didn't stop.
When Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out, and it was a beautiful piece that was nevertheless basically a retelling of "The Changeling", we hung on.
We gave 'em a pass on Star Trek:V.
We waited two seasons for shows like TNG, DS9, and Voyager to hit their stride. Most shows have to hit the ground running: if they haven't established audience six or thirteen eps in, they're done.
In fact, we're dug in like ticks in a lot of ways.
So, the fact that Berman has managed to produce a product that's on shaky ground says more about HIM than it does about the franchise, IMO.
But Paramount seems to believe he's a golden boy. A Paramount executive voiced the opinion that Star Trek was losing its fanbase. To her, I offer the previous comments: we're not going away because we don't like it any more, we're going away because we're not happy with what's being done now.
So, the question is, at what point do they no longer get a pass because it's Trek? For a lot of folks, that point may have already come (based on the ratings).
I don't think Paramount is dumb enough to assume the property is no longer valuable. I do think they're dumb enough not to realize that Berman needs to move on to other things, and someone new needs to be in charge.
(These comments refer to the fanbase in aggregate; I'm well aware that Enterprise has its fans.)
With the RPG going down the tubes, if Trek followed suit then I would have no futher reason to visit this site....
Allow me to take a quick look around....
Okay, done.
Oh, wait, what am I still doing here?
Waiting.
Waiting for what?
Waiting for people to finally get the message.
There aren't many of us left, but we remember. Those of us with these memories remember things that worked and things that didn't. And just because we are regarded as old and out of date doesn't mean we are wrong, merely that experience has shown us what we need to survive. New doesn't mean better, and old doesn't mean traditional, and slapping the label Star Trek on something doesn't make it so (no pun intended). However, those terms are used frequently here and often to mean what they don't necessarily mean.
Basically, in the end, the past is the past and cannot be rewritten (no matter how much money is thrown at it), and the future has to follow a path of events. Trying to change either of these causes suffering on many levels.
I honestly like Enterprise. Are my standards too low? Perhaps. I didn't watch Voyager, yet I got to watch a few very good episodes. I'm not saying I like ENT because if I don't "support" the show then there will be no more ST on the air. I can easily live without any ST, be it TV series or movies, so that's not the point. I have seen the majority of the episodes from season 1-2 but now I have stopped watching. Because I lost interest? No... its BECAUSE I DON'T GET UPN AND I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CABLE TV ANYMORE!!!!!!!! (I used to watch ENT on 'Space' which is the Canadian equivalent of the US sci-fi channel). THAT, I am sure, is one of the main reasons why the ratings are not so great. I recall quite a few TNG episodes that are actually worse than some of the average ENT episodes, even if TNG was solid TV. OTOH there has been in one form or another ST on TV for the last 17 years now... after a while you're bound to lose some steam wouldn't we agree?