My initial reaction? Shock.
Well, you can't fault Braga for his honesty, which is about as blunt as a head-on Amtrak train. I think I'm going to pick up this interview article in the May issue of Cinescape magazine
He is so going to get it from some of the fan.
http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial...5&obj_id=34066
I wonder what does this expression mean exactly ? I can't really understand what is a "pornographer"... :confused:
I do not even want to read this. :(
Tell me he COMPLAINED about FANS AGAIN!!!!
Not trying to type anything negative, but he is an idiot.
By ALL definitions, an idiot.
He is a fool and if Enterprise fails? He has no one to blame but himself.
(Sorry if this came on a little strong) :mad:
I dunno if "continuity pornagrapher" is the proper, Martha Stewart-approved term, but after a few visits to places like trekbbs.com, I think he has a point.
"Ferengi on Enterprise? Braga is RUINING the franchise!"
"I DEMAND Braga resign."
:D
Having a point is one thing. Resorting to name-calling? Think about it? That is EXACTLY what he has done. If some fans attacked him verbally, fine. Address that, but do it without 3rd grade tactics. In every debate, the first one to really annoy the other usually wins. He has lost it.Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
[B]I dunno if "continuity pornagrapher" is the proper, Martha Stewart-approved term, but after a few visits to places like trekbbs.com, I think he has a point.
If I were in charge of anything, I would understand that one of my first duties is PR.
He has forgotten this simple rule and, I predict, it will be his downfall.
As I side note- I really enjoy Enterprise. It’s not my favorite, but I like it. It is pretty good Sci Fi.
Isn’t it strange that the episodes with the Andorians, Klingons and Vulcans were the most popular?
Guess us “Porno Freeks” do have a point, huh?
Actually Braga definately did not coin the term, it's been around for a while. And he most certainly does have a point. I thought he was pretty restrained, considering some of the truely reprehensible things people say about the guy online.
Some exclusive interview...
I am certain that Braga used the 'rabid fans and continuity pornogrophers' back last August when the show was being put down across the board before the pilot...
He sure did (That was what I meant in my first post here).Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Gurden
I am certain that Braga used the 'rabid fans and continuity pornogrophers' back last August when the show was being put down across the board before the pilot...
Oh well, at least he is consistant?
He really should come up with some new material though.
Unless there are some subtleties in the english language that keep escaping me ;) I think there is a difference between "continuity pornographer" and "porno freak". :)Quote:
Originally posted by Kronok
Having a point is one thing. Resorting to name-calling? Think about it? That is EXACTLY what he has done. If some fans attacked him verbally, fine. Address that, but do it without 3rd grade tactics. In every debate, the first one to really annoy the other usually wins. He has lost it.
If I were in charge of anything, I would understand that one of my first duties is PR.
He has forgotten this simple rule and, I predict, it will be his downfall.
As I side note- I really enjoy Enterprise. It’s not my favorite, but I like it. It is pretty good Sci Fi.
Isn’t it strange that the episodes with the Andorians, Klingons and Vulcans were the most popular?
Guess us “Porno Freeks” do have a point, huh?
From the interview anyway, I could understand at least Braga's reaction (if not the use of the word). I mean, there's this rumour of Ferengis in Enterprise, and instantly, people on the Internet are yelling that B&B are disrupting continuity. If the episode had really been written like it has been aired (that is, not hastily edited after noticing the continuity pornographers were right and Ferengis should not be met), I understand B&B could have been PO'd.
It's not very good for one's self-control to have every move one does becoming instantly the subject of flames in every Trek board of the Net.
I don't know these guys BrannonBraga at all, but I think that they do love Trek, and to some extent, I can understand that they grow angry watching the whole Net calling them more dirtier names than "pornographers" and accusing them of killing Trek's spirit and the like. Imagine yourselves in their places.
But then again, I rather like Enterprise (and as a Star Trek show as well, wich is more aggravating :D), and I liked what I saw of Voyager so I may be partial to B&B here.
The 'pornographer' thing was silly. As for the rest of it? He's flat-out right -- the fans have been over the top in their criticism of the new show, which doesn't stink anywhere near as badly as most claim.
B&B rightly took heat for an attrocious show, Voyager, but there were plenty who liked it. So if they were giving the audience what they wanted, the criticism of B&B -- which gets much more personal than his responses (see a lot of the posts on this BBS for examples; I'm guilty too).
The whole thing gives me a Jay and SIlent Bob Strike Back vibe...maybe the fans should head off to Hollywood to stop the show's production, while they're at it. But don't forget to live by the good book of the road...
I did some perusal of the dictionary and continuity pornagrapher is actually accurate.
por·nog·ra·phy Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3.Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
por·nogra·pher n.
porno·graphic (pôrn-grfk) adj.
porno·graphi·cal·ly adv.
Moving on to "lurid"...
lu·rid Pronunciation Key (lrd)
adj.
1. Causing shock or horror; gruesome.
2. Marked by sensationalism: a lurid account of the crime. See Synonyms at ghastly.
3. Glowing or shining with the glare of fire through a haze: lurid flames.
4. Sallow or pallid in color.
So I think he's technically correct. :D
btw, I love the "Joe and Silent Bob" image. I have images of people with pitchforks and torches outside the Paramount lot.
Look, I'm not Braga's biggest fan. As people in my gaming group can attest, I didn't like Voyager at all and rarely watched it. But Rick Berman has been in charge of Star Trek since the late 80's for all intents and purposes and Braga has been a major force in it since the early 90's.
I love all the little details that make up the Trek universe. But I really try not to get too hung up on every tiny glitch - must come from being a Doctor Who fan. I know in my Star Trek games I have moments when I fudge continuity a little here or there for the good of a story. If Braga has an "Enterprise" episode with the Dominion, Romulans, Gorn, Borg, and Pakleds unite to blow up the Earth with their quantum torpedoes then I'll be unhappy with the episode... If they mix up the date of the Utopia Planitia settlement, I'm not going to lose sleep (this was a major flame-fest on trekbbs a few months back.) Actually, come to think of it, nothing Braga does, aside from criminal acts against me or my family, could really make me lose sleep. :D
Porno or no porno, Braga should at least get his fact straight.
Braga said in the interview:
"Of course we know that the Ferengi didn't make first contact with Archer. They made it with Picard. The only people who see the Ferengi are Trip, T'pol and Archer, and they never find out who they were."
Let's see ... at the end of the episode, didn't I see a lot of guards and other crew members watching while the Ferengi loaded everything back onto the Enterprise?
And although it wasn't actually shown in the episode, is Braga saying that nobody even bothered to ask any of the Ferengi who they were?
Sheesh.
From the [fictional] cutting room floor.
Archer: Who are you?
Ferengi: We are the Borg.
Archer: The Borg... I see...
Reed: Please, Captain, I know he's lying. Let me torture him some more...
Archer: No, Admiral Forrest is still upset over your last interrogation. Let the log show we have made first contact with the Borg. And no, we can't execute them. But we have no one to turn them over to... Malcolm, just scare them a little bit so they'll know not to mess with us again. Malcolm, put down the thumbscrews...
I haven't seen the episode but my brother watched it and I couldn't stop him from telling me most of it. Apparently there's a line where Archer asks the Ferengis who they are and they answer it's none of his business.Quote:
Originally posted by Jabara Eris
And although it wasn't actually shown in the episode, is Braga saying that nobody even bothered to ask any of the Ferengi who they were?
Sheesh.
Besides, given the Ferengis known honesty ;), I'd not be surprised if Archer and al did get a different answer each time the question was asked ("Captain's log : today we have met a strange species with very big ears and a philosophy based around greed. We asked what their names was, and from their answers it seems they're either called Cardassians, Breen, Zerg, El-Aurian, Betazoids, Siths, Tellarites, Remans, or Centaurans" :D :p)
I like solid continuity. That's one of the things that makes a coherent universe, and it's gotta be one of the things that a writer understands.
From a writer's perspective, continuity is a straitjacket. He can't use character "X" to make a first contact, because waaa-y-y-y-y back in 1987, someone established that character "Z" was the first to make that first contact. It's gotta be frustrating. And I feel for the guy whose creativity is caught in that vise. But, he knew (or should have known) what he was getting into when he signed on.
Putting all this aside, I can ignore continuity lapses if I get a good story. They still irritate me, but at least I can say, "Yeah, but what a great story!". The problem is, IMO, Enterprise just hasn't told that many great stories. Some have been adequate, but in my view, here are the problems:
- Time travel stories are tricky to pull off for high caliber writers. I just don't think Berman and Braga have the skill. Voyager's "Endgame" tends to confirm my opinion. And yet, they've made a time travel arc central to the entire Enterprise story.
- Why are they obsessed with holograms? I was so hoping we could get away from these stories, most of which are fairly weak, since Earth didn't have the technology yet. But, no, we get to run into aliens who have it, not once, but twice!
- Many of the stories I've seen have been sadly predictable in their plots. Examples: the story with the hunters, and the recent story with Rene Auberjonois (which was basically a retread of a DS9 episode).
- I don't see much character development. I know they seem to fear arcs of any kind, lately (are arc shows harder to sell into syndication?), but these people should grow and change. So far, we haven't seen even hints of this.
- I could probably start a whole 'nother thread on how they've mishandled the Vulcans.
None of these problems, except possibly the Vulcans, have anything to do with continuity. So, sure, they get hammered for continuity -- but they might get away with more lapses if quality of the series were higher.
YMMV.
I agree with the "YMMV" comment. I can see, for example, what many fans dislike about the Vulcans in Enterprise. But for me, that's one of my favorite parts, the place where I feel they have been the boldest.
Hmm...considering that use of the word, can I call my boss an "employee pornographer?"
On second thought, never mind. :)
At any rate, Braga can say all he wants. The continuity police of the world will continue to speak their piece. Everyone's gotta have a hobby. :)
Dan! Say it ain't so! Y-y-y-you like the way they're doing Vyulcans? But they've always been the good guys! The universe is static, it doesn't change. I fear change!Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
I agree with the "YMMV" comment. I can see, for example, what many fans dislike about the Vulcans in Enterprise. But for me, that's one of my favorite parts, the place where I feel they have been the boldest.
:rolleyes:
Actually, I like the tack they've taken with the Vulcans. Ineti has anoterh post on reinventing Trek -- well, here you go. Think of it as a remake of the original show, just different. There were a LOT of really bad TOS episodes, so if .Enterprise is weak for time to time, it's in good company.
The continuity thing. They didn't even try for continuity in TOS, TNG tried but wasn't terribly consistent, either. Voyager's continuity was pathetic as well...what continuity?
It's a freakin TV show written by a bunch of people. Unless you have one or a very few writers working together -- ala Babylon 5 -- you're not gonna have real continuity. And B5 screwed up from time to time too.
The fans, it seems to me, just like an excuse to bitch
I think that's got a lot to do with it. For myself, I've actually never met a Star Trek series I didn't like (individual episodes are a different story). But I also tend not to notice the missed continuity much. Occasionally I do, but it doesn't bother me much. I've seen those kind of violations in other TV shows and books; I just figure it's fiction, and the primary purpose is to tell a story.Quote:
Originally posted by qerlin
...The fans, it seems to me, just like an excuse to bitch
I also like the way they're doing the Vulcans in Enterprise; all arrogant, obnoxious, and superior. It's interesting to think that humans have influenced Vulcans as much as Vulcans have influenced humans. (and as for the Vulcans being too emotional, to be honest, they have never seemed completely unemotional to me in ANY series!)
I don't know if 'continuity pornographers' is as accurate as, say...
"continuity fetishists?"
Seriously, it seems sometimes as though there's certain people who can't enjoy something if it's outside that tiny little box, and I get this mental picture of some weasly geek sitting somewhere cranking it wildly saying "OOH... continuity...UNNH..."
First "sick, just sick!" of Two
Uh-oh. This thread I started is turning into a pro-Braga organization.
As for the term, while "pornographer" has different meanings (thank you, Dan Stack), none stand out more than what is usually applied in today's society.
You just read my mind...plus you can say it in 'polite' company :pQuote:
Originally posted by First of Two
I don't know if 'continuity pornographers' is as accurate as, say...
"continuity fetishists?"
I'll just start and say that I didn't like VOY that much nor do I like ENT, I do watch some of the episodes, but I make sure I know what I can expect.
That said I think Braga may be right...for once. Arguing about when the such and such a race was met is silly. What would be completely idiotic would be to have quantum torpedoes and EMH's running around the ship-now that would be something. I still expect to see some time travel episodes where they meet the future Starfleet.
I actually like the Vulcans in ENT (one of the few things), I figure that the next generation of Vulcans gets used to emotional creatures walking all about.
Anyway, what's to say that it didn't actually happen the way ENT shows it? Maybe the future TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY generations got it all wrong and the historical files were all written poorly and vaguely. Take the Ferengis, entry could note:"Species with big ears and greedy"-that could describe almost ANY race out there.
On the other hand, Braga is running a franchise that alot of people have come accustomed to seeing a certain way. He should expect some flames and insults, I'm surprised it doesn't just roll of his back.
IMHO, it has everything to do with the story. If someone was to make the same type of changes to a story like Lord of The Rings wouldn't 99% of Tolkiens fans be up in arms?
They have changed the history of Trek so much with Ent it no longer resembles what the series has laid down in the last 30 or so years. If B&B wanted to make a "new" series why didn't they come up with their own premise...Oh wait, that would require imagination and talent. So, what they have done is re-make Trek in their own image, and doing a really sucky job of it.
What history of Trek?
Didn't each new episode that mentioned "such-and-so happened 200 years ago" 'change Trek history?'
Doesn't the fact that there's no evidence of any "Eugenics Wars" and no "Voyager 6" (and so "Leningrad" anymore) 'change Trek history?'
Yeah, man. TOS sucks, they make up history.
Since there's very little 'canon' material at all, (as close to 'null return' as one could expect) how can we be SOOOOOOO certain that history is being messed with at all?
*I'm waiting to hear in ENT that the Vulcans get 'conquered' by someone at some point to establish continuity with one of McCoy's early offhand remarks in TOS. BUt it won't happen because continuity is an illusion.
Sorry, but I'm not a TOS denier. Despite its flaws, this is the show that started everything and gained a cult following.
I don't believe the comparison with Lord of the Rings is 100%valid - it did not have to be deilvered one chapter every week or two and after chapters were written they could be changed - heck the Hobbit was modified to better fit in with Lord of the Rings. :D
A more valid comparison would be with Babylon 5, which, it should be noted, suffered from the occasional continuity glitch. And even Babylon 5, if examined under the same microscope that Star Trek often is, would provide ample ammunition for those wishing to find flaws.
Me, I'm just a guy who likes to watch Enterprise on Wednesday night. I'm also a guy who didn't watch Voyager regularly. Didn't care for it that much. Do I have to declare my allegiance for or against Braga based on that? :D
Personally, I prefer some of the other writers and producers - for example I rather enjoyed the years that Behr and Wolfe ran DS9. But DS9 seemed to slip a little after Wolfe left and Andromeda, while entertaining under Wolfe, wasn't as good in my opnion as the work they did on DS9. Similarly, I admired the knowledge and dedication Ronald D. Moore brought to TNG and DS9, pretty much inventing the Klingon culture.
Berman, the 2nd-most hated man in Star Trek, is the one who took Roddenberry's vision of the 24th century and made it something watchable. Does anyone miss the zero conflict, "back in the 20th century people feared dying." aspects of the first season?
Braga I view as about average - maybe a touch above due to episodes like "Cause and Affect" (Captain Frasier Crane) and "Parallels" - crisis of the infinite Worfs. And like I said, I like the portrayal of Vulcans on Enterprise. He did have the misfortune of teaching us that Warp 10 = Mutate into Salamander which drops him down a few dozen pegs... :D I'd probably prefer someone else in charge. He does have a tendency to say some explosive things - sometimes I suspect he does it just to get a rise out of people (a motive I'd have to respect in a twisted way... :D) I just don't get the absolute total hatred he inspires. You'd think he was the living embodiment of the Good Times virus.
WARNING... LONG RANT... MAY CAUSE EYESTRAIN.
First of all, Braga's point is about 1 billion percent accurate. The continuity-hugging fans are getting a bit barbaric towards Enterprise, and although his language is a bit drastic, I agree with him totally.
People who have done nothing but criticize Enterprise since it came on don't seem to realize that B&B are NOT responsible for every single thing that happens on the show.
If the acting is bad, it means that Bakula or Blalock or whoever was having a bad day.
If the writing is bad, it's usually the fault of the writer of that episode.
If the special effects are cheesy, blame the Production department, not the producers.
The list goes on...
The continuity diehards also don't seem to realize that B&B are under a lot more pressure than we seem to think: first of all, they are under the pressure from the network. Paramount couldn't give a hoot about satisfying actual Star Trek fans, and is more concerned with getting as many viewers as possible, Trekkies or not. This usually means puttings as much explicit sex, nudity, and violence on the show as possible without having to increase the TV rating to TV14. Get used to this, fans, it's not going to change while televison is a form of marketing.
Second, they are under pressure from idiotic reviewers and ratings people like the TV critic from the Seattle Times, who is a true critic in the sense of the word, in that she has never said anything nice about anything Star Trek.
Finally, they are of course under pressure from us, the fans, who are expecting them to create an excellent show in its own right, as well as continue the legacy of Star Trek we've all come to know and love.
So give B&B a break. And next time you feel like Enterprise bashing, try this when you sit down to watch the show:
Turn on the TV... Sing along with the theme song, even if you hate it... make fun of the commercials... laugh at your best friend who goes nuts over Jolene Blalock's figure... do bad imitations of the captain's dog... Make fun of Mayweather's dialogue because it's so badly written... pretend to help the crew phaser down those aliens...
And above all, sit back, relax, and enjoy what I consider to be the best Trek show since TNG. I am a huge fan of Enterprise, and I would watch it even if I was the only person in the world who did. [That's how I feel sometimes anyway...:rolleyes: ]
I don't know. If I had to put up with all the crap that people have thrown at Brannon Braga for the past seven years, i would have gone postal long before now. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
On the other hand, Braga is running a franchise that alot of people have come accustomed to seeing a certain way. He should expect some flames and insults, I'm surprised it doesn't just roll of his back.
Personally, I agree with Dan. Some days they're on, and some days they're off. Cut them some slack!
The way I see it, dismissing two professionals doing their job the best they can in an effort to entertain others as nothing les than the antichrists of show business is just plain wrong.
It is also wrong, IMO, to likewise dismiss their work out of hand simply becuase they did it, or because it is a different interpretation of what we knew before, or because it had one or two scenes that stressed the "sexy" quotient of one or more characters.
But that's just me. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their own opinion. :)
Okay. I'm done ranting now. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along... :D;)
Posted by erhershman:
LOLQuote:
Turn on the TV... Sing along with the theme song, even if you hate it... make fun of the commercials... laugh at your best friend who goes nuts over Jolene Blalock's figure... do bad imitations of the captain's dog... Make fun of Mayweather's dialogue because it's so badly written... pretend to help the crew phaser down those aliens...
Hey...I already do that.:D :D :D
I don't think Berman or Braga are the anti-Christ, by any means. I just don't think they're very talented. Just my opinion, that's all.
Whether or not a continuity error bothers me has much to do with how big an error it is. Meeting the Ferengi early didn't bother me that much, it's no more than a nit. The way they've mishandled the Vulcans *does* bother me, because it flies in the face of almost everything that was established about them in TOS, and much of what was established about them in TNG.
There, the Vulcans suppressed their emotions fairly brutally. And they were fair and honorable beings (except when there were problems). The Vulcans of "Enterprise" are wildly emotional (for Vulcans), petty, and mean-spirited. They could be a different race, in my view.
As for Enterprise in general ... while I had a hard time finding an episode I deeply disliked, I also have a hard time finding one I deeply enjoyed. It's just middle of the road quality at best, as far as I'm concerned. I voice those concerns because I'd like to see it get better.
As always, YMMV.
Just one question, I'm unaccustomed to some of these Internet BBS abbreviatons. Forgive me if I'm sounding stupid, but... what the heck does "YMMV" stand for?
Your Mileage May Vary :)Quote:
Originally posted by erhershman
Just one question, I'm unaccustomed to some of these Internet BBS abbreviatons. Forgive me if I'm sounding stupid, but... what the heck does "YMMV" stand for?
Your opinion may differ, etc.
1) If the acting is bad....Quote:
Originally posted by erhershman
WARNING... LONG RANT... MAY CAUSE EYESTRAIN.
First of all, Braga's point is about 1 billion percent accurate. The continuity-hugging fans are getting a bit barbaric towards Enterprise, and although his language is a bit drastic, I agree with him totally.
People who have done nothing but criticize Enterprise since it came on don't seem to realize that B&B are NOT responsible for every single thing that happens on the show.
If the acting is bad, it means that Bakula or Blalock or whoever was having a bad day.
If the writing is bad, it's usually the fault of the writer of that episode.
If the special effects are cheesy, blame the Production department, not the producers.
The list goes on...
The continuity diehards also don't seem to realize that B&B are under a lot more pressure than we seem to think: first of all, they are under the pressure from the network. Paramount couldn't give a hoot about satisfying actual Star Trek fans, and is more concerned with getting as many viewers as possible, Trekkies or not. This usually means puttings as much explicit sex, nudity, and violence on the show as possible without having to increase the TV rating to TV14. Get used to this, fans, it's not going to change while televison is a form of marketing.
Second, they are under pressure from idiotic reviewers and ratings people like the TV critic from the Seattle Times, who is a true critic in the sense of the word, in that she has never said anything nice about anything Star Trek.
Finally, they are of course under pressure from us, the fans, who are expecting them to create an excellent show in its own right, as well as continue the legacy of Star Trek we've all come to know and love.
So give B&B a break. And next time you feel like Enterprise bashing, try this when you sit down to watch the show:
Turn on the TV... Sing along with the theme song, even if you hate it... make fun of the commercials... laugh at your best friend who goes nuts over Jolene Blalock's figure... do bad imitations of the captain's dog... Make fun of Mayweather's dialogue because it's so badly written... pretend to help the crew phaser down those aliens...
And above all, sit back, relax, and enjoy what I consider to be the best Trek show since TNG. I am a huge fan of Enterprise, and I would watch it even if I was the only person in the world who did. [That's how I feel sometimes anyway...:rolleyes: ]
May be mistaken but don't the producers have a say who is to star in their shows?
2) The Writer's fault...
Again, don't the producers have a choice in who writes the episodes?
3)Special Effects...
Ahh heck. See above.
Common denominator of why the show is bad....Hmmm.
4)I realize that. But Enterprise so obviously caters to the lowest common denominator. Other shows, SG-1 comes to mind, have skimpy costumes but their not rubbing KY jelly all over each other. It seems some networks can keep a certain level of decorum with shows...Hmm what does that say about Para. anyway?
5) The Reviewers...
Ok, I totally agree here.
6)The fans...
Funny they they did good by the fans until B&B and Enterprise got spewed forth.
7)Sit back and relaxx..
I already do that. Making fun of Enterprise seems to almost be a hobby, probably guessed that already.
Rant over.
But things and people change over the course of 100+ years. I mean, look at how attitudes and behaviors have changed in our history over the course of a century or two...Quote:
Originally posted by Fesarius
The way they've mishandled the Vulcans *does* bother me, because it flies in the face of almost everything that was established about them in TOS, and much of what was established about them in TNG.
There, the Vulcans suppressed their emotions fairly brutally. And they were fair and honorable beings (except when there were problems). The Vulcans of "Enterprise" are wildly emotional (for Vulcans), petty, and mean-spirited. They could be a different race, in my view.
Just a thought... :)
I take you've only seen the edited-for-network-TV version of SG1? I saw more nudity and just as many "adult situations" in the unedited, made for Showtime first season than I have seen in all the episodes of Enterpise I've watched...Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
Other shows, SG-1 comes to mind, have skimpy costumes but their not rubbing KY jelly all over each other. It seems some networks can keep a certain level of decorum with shows...Hmm what does that say about Para. anyway?
I am I the only one that remembers when TNG debuted back in '87 how people were saying things like "It's just not Star Trek", "The ship is too ugly", "The acting sucks," "The stories are too hokey" and almost word-for-word the same complaints we've been hearing about Enterprise since it premiered? :rolleyes:Quote:
6)The fans...
Funny they they did good by the fans until B&B and Enterprise got spewed forth.
But from TOS to DS9 it was pretty much nailed down that the Vulcan behaviour hadn't changed much since the time of Surak. There wasn't much difference between "the image" of Surak and Spock in that TOS episode. There wasn't much difference between how Tuvok and Spock-about 100 years separating them.
To my knowledge the Vulcans didn't start to get to be bigotted, mean spirited, rascist, condescending jerks until B&B took over, as evidenced by the Vulcan Captain in "Take me out to the Holodeck."
Oh well. As I have said before there's always SG-1 and Andromeda.
1) Can't say too much on that. After all I live in an area that has the Soprono's on at prime time on cable and uncut. IIRC some networks have had the shows that appear on thier stations re worked to bring up ratings. Are the "new" scenes in the VHS or DVD eps? I would like to see them.Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Burke
I take you've only seen the edited-for-network-TV version of SG1? I saw more nudity and just as many "adult situations" in the unedited, made for Showtime first season than I have seen in all the episodes of Enterpise I've watched...
I am I the only one that remembers when TNG debuted back in '87 how people were saying things like "It's just not Star Trek", "The ship is too ugly", "The acting sucks," "The stories are too hokey" and almost word-for-word the same complaints we've been hearing about Enterprise since it premiered? :rolleyes:
2)I never said any of those things. As I remember my reaction was something like "Great another Star Trek, nice ship, interesting an android..."
Okay, I keep hearing these complaints about hot babes in tight suit and gel rubbing for Voyager and Enterprise... however, I think there was one of the Star Trek series where every female crew member of the ship was dressed in some sort of microskirt uniform, where the captain of the ship (or his twin) tried to rape one of them in one of the early episodes, and that every other female alien was usually dressed just enough not to be naked...
Now I wasn't here when this series aired first (in fact, I only watched it last year), but I wonder if this couldn't have been said to be offensive, or designed to attract more people, back then ;) ?
If this isn't rumour, I think Star Trek was not very liked when it first aired. Only a small (but hyperactive) bunch of fans formed, while the rest of the audience turned away in contempt (at least that's what I heard). Thanks to these early fans, Star Trek has grown to become the current franchise and spawn the three other series which all have wonderful episodes (check the "Best Voyager episode" thread if you have doubt about the latter series :D). Maybe the people who're now yelling at Enterprise or think it is bad are now on the other side of the fence this time ?
I guess I wasn't ranting (much :D) here. Anyway I didn't intend to be offensive to anyone, so apologies in advance if someone felt so :)
I think the main reason B&B made the Vulcans the way they are on Enterprise, I think it was probably to get reviewers from screaming about T'pol, "It doesn't matter whether she walks around in a skintight catsuit! She's just another Spock!"Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
But from TOS to DS9 it was pretty much nailed down that the Vulcan behaviour hadn't changed much since the time of Surak. There wasn't much difference between "the image" of Surak and Spock in that TOS episode. There wasn't much difference between how Tuvok and Spock-about 100 years separating them.
To my knowledge the Vulcans didn't start to get to be bigotted, mean spirited, rascist, condescending jerks until B&B took over, as evidenced by the Vulcan Captain in "Take me out to the Holodeck."
And as for the guy in Take Me Out to etc. on DS9, there are bound to be exceptions to the norm, even in an enlightened culture like the Vulcans. After all, if you didn't have people who thought they were better than everybody else, how would there be a Vulcan Isolationist Movement? Their basic philosophy is that everyone else is inferior to Vulcans, so Vulcans should have no contact with them.