BRAGA accuses rabid fans, calls them "Continuity Pornographers"

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Yeah, and how many throwaway lines were contradicted by the earlier shows? And not just under B&B. And while you may not consider that first contact 'disastrous' the Klingons are hardly fans of Archer and co after it. Secondly, the 'first contact, may refer to the contact with Klingons over a period of time, not just the initial 'first' contact. Perhaps we should wait and see how it all pans out before we start the name calling. I disagree that it is a major canon violation, since it is open to interpretation. Not to mention, history often looks back on things with a different perspective.

Could they have done it differently? yes (I wouldn't have used the Klingons at all) but does that excuse some of the attitudes we see? No.

[Dan Stack]

How do we know that the first contact that Archer had wasn't disastrous? Time may reveal it to have been a major gaffe on the part of Archer. In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain was highly regarded for obtaining "peace in our time" with Nazi Germany. One year later, Britain was at war with Germany. If they, France, and the USA had spent the 30's dealing with Hitler then the horrors of WWII would have been lessened considerably.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Nicely put Dan, that was the point I was trying to make

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter

But yeah, let's just crucify them 'cause we don't like how they contradict Joe Blogg's original fanfic Trek timeline, or my dreamed up image of what the Andorians are like, or the explicit statement in novel number 105 that the Vulcans are always nice and cuddly. Oh and let's just prove Braga's point while we're at it.

First I would like to say that I don't consider myself a rabid ST fan...Rabid SG-1 fan, maybe....Rabid B5 fan definitly. So I view myself as a moderate here.

The reason why I crucify B&B is because I think they are doing a terrible job all round...Yeah, yeah they saved the franchise, they are gods,blah blah blah. They have created they own universe and because they know they are not capable of running a show on their own merits they have to ride the coat tails of a true storyteller. Then they take the name off and say they are trying to separate their vision from Roddenberry's, and what type of stories have they told...Klingons...Nausicaans....Frengei! Oh yeah guys way imaginative, doing a great job of separation there. And the only creature they have truly created, those guys who can make themselves flatter then a flap jack, are so ridiculously silly it's not funny.

Everything about Enterprise is painful:
-The Theme
-the continuity, and they haven't been keeping to their own continuity either.
-the ship, thought this is the closest thing to something I like.
-the crew has no synergy, and I couldn't care less what happens to them.
-the stories are at best a rehash of previous ideas, at worst just terrible.
-the cast themselves are passable. I will give the show that.
-the KY Jelly scenes that are their just to bring in ratings.
-the way they are running the established races.

That is why I crucify B&B, not just because they are blowing off 30 years of established "history", but because they are hacks. And awful whiney ones at that who can't even respond to critisim with a modicum of maturity.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Fair enough, but remember that is only your opinion. yes others may share it, but there are plenty who do not.

If you don't like it don't watch it. And if you don't like or watch it, why waste time complaining about it? I never understood why the people who forced themselves to watch all of Voyager, and did nothing but complain every single week. Now I'm not saying that's you, but it is, in my opinion, that simple. Use your prerogaotive to change the channel. And if you already have, then great. Why waste energy complaining about it? *shrug*

To deal with your specific points, firstly I sttrongly disagreee tha tthe cast has no synergy. That may be your opinion but it is not one I, or many others share.

Sorry, but I still disagree about the continuity. it is nowhere near as bad as the CPs claim.

Sotiries a rehash? In some ways, yes, but it's hard to be original after so many episodes (which is why I thought they should rest Trek for a couple years at least) but I don't feel they've done that bad a job so far. Some of those episodes have been pretty good, IMHO. Certainly not all, but not bad for a first season.

KY jelly... Urm .. . well no contest. But it's a bit of fun, no different in intent than all the scantily clad women in TOS.

Established races? Sorry, I have no problem with they way they're portraying them.

Each to their own. But if you hate it so much, just let it go and focus your energy on something worthwhile. Life's too short.

As for B&B being whiney, well I suggest you take a good long look at the fans Braga was talking about. They are the epitomy of whiney. I might not agree with a lot of Braga's past antics, but I do not blame him a whit for having that attitude tpwards such people.

And on that note, I'm going to bow out before this gets violent

[Phantom]

I don't watch it. All I wanted was a good show that was, at least in the spirit of Trek, i don't think that was too much to ask for. If they, B&B, wanted to do another Sci-fi show, completely separate from Trek, I probably would be a little more forgiving, but what they did was build on something someone else dreamed up, mutilated it beyond all recognition, then removed the Trek name and foised off as their own work. Oh well. (shrug)

And as you say this is only my opinion.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

This place is sooooo much more civilised than the Trek BBS. I would've been flamed to death by now

[Dan Stack]

I've gotten scorched at trekbbs.com. Don't know the exact quote but believe I'm something along the lines of a 12-year old Braga-fanboy who only likes kewl explosions.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

That's nothing. I made the mistake of taking issue with some rather bigoted anti-gay misinformation some psycho-nut was spouting. I also made the mistake of stating my qualifications in support of the actual facts, as opposed to the skewed lies this guy was putting forward.

Apparently I am actually not a nurse, I do not have a degree in biotechnology, and in no way can I possibly be in a long term heterosexual relationship, since I am clearly a single, gay, uneducated moron. After all real men aren't nurses (not that I really am one) and no self-respecting, god-fearing straight guy would ever believe homosexuality is OK. And of course, I'm the bigot, not him

And in another thread, the same guy was moaning that coloured folks don't let him call them the N word.

There are some REAL freaks on that BBS. I like this palce much better

TrekBBS is poorly moderated, and far too big for its own good.

[Sho-sa Kurita]

Originally posted by Phantom
I don't watch it.

This statement obviates pretty much everything else you say. If you don't watch it (or have only seen a few episodes), then you can't make meaningful criticism of the show.

As a "for instance," many people love to endlessly complain about the "jelly" scenes. In actuality there has only been one (1) such scene -- the one in the pilot. Have there been other decon scenes? Yes. Have they been anything like that (admittedly ridiculous) scene? No.

As for continuity? Since there's a temporal cold war going on, no-one will be able to complain one whit about continuity being screwed until the show is actually off the air, and we see what we're left with.

Do I think the show is perfect? By no means. Is it "bad Star Trek?" Also by no means. And yes, that's merely in my opinion.

-- Daniel

[Imagus]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
How do we know that the first contact that Archer had wasn't disastrous? Time may reveal it to have been a major gaffe on the part of Archer. In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain was highly regarded for obtaining "peace in our time" with Nazi Germany. One year later, Britain was at war with Germany. If they, France, and the USA had spent the 30's dealing with Hitler then the horrors of WWII would have been lessened considerably.

Yeah, I think that's definitely the point!

T'Pol intimated that Klingons are extremely violent and believe that "honour" (read "image") and strength are more important than success. In spite of this, Archer rescued a dying Klingon, then returned him to the Klingon homeworld.

In the eyes of the Klingons, said Klingon was dishonoured when he accepted help from another weaker race to survive - whether he wanted to or not! The minor fact that this helped him complete his mission made things worse because he should have been strong enough to do it on his own.

Now the Klingon Empire is in debt to an inferior race - and this is supposd to be a good thing? Not in their eyes!

No wonder it led to a century of war...

Now, if Archer had returned the body for an honourable burial - thereby allowing them to extract the info without his knowledge, things might have been very different. And the Klingons would probably have been just as happy never seeing the info in the first place...

[Vaebn]

Braga has every right to call the fans what he wants. Just as the fans have every right to demand what they want of him.
To me, at least, Star Trek has it's own universe, with it's own rules. Those rules have been established throughout series and in official publications. The very least the writers could do is stick to what has already been said. It's like Voyager having two forward torp launchers one week and then having four the next. It just doesn't go. People will notice. Very much like what is happening in Enterprise.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Sho-sa Kurita


This statement obviates pretty much everything else you say. If you don't watch it (or have only seen a few episodes), then you can't make meaningful criticism of the show.

Allow me to re-phrase, I don't watch anymore. I watched the first half of the season, then made up my mind. I liked it at the first (though I did have some complaints, but I was willing to let them go), but as the season went on more mistakes were made and the stories in general got worse. I just got to the point where I really didn't care if I saw the show, then I just stopped watching it all together. Braga's betrayal isn't that he has flamed the continuity of the show, it is that he didn't try to make a good show. He just wanted something that could continue a dieing franchise.

I'll admit that I thought going back to the start was a silly premise, but I did really wnat this to be a good show. But we can't always get what we want.

[First of Two]

You must have missed the first couple seasons of TNG altogether, then.

[AllenS]

Originally posted by Fesarius
IThere, 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.

I guess you weren't watching the same cut of "Amok Time" as I was then. Given the Vulcans' attitudes towards the humans in that episode, I'd say that Enterprise's portrayal of the race is pretty good. Frankly, given that and the way Sarek acted toward his son due to his joining Starfleet, I always saw pure-blooded Vulcans as being highly racist and using their "logic" as an excuse to be so. A Vulcan of course would deny this...the same way a lot of people deny their racism today. IF Vulcans' attitudes toward humans have improved by the time of TNG, it is because of exposure to humans and a realization that the illogical racism that kept them out of Starfleet until a certain half-Human, half-Vulcan showed them it could be a good thing, was wrong.

Allen