Berman on ENT changes

[Sho-sa Kurita]

At the risk of fanning flames, let us consider an example of honor v. logic (and a little bit of lying).

While engaged in a WW I dogfight, one pilot damages the other plane to an extent that it is no longer combat capable, but just might get the pilot back home. Historically it would not be unusual for the "victorious" pilot to allow the other to return home, despite knowing he'll be back in the air to fight again. Logical? No. Honorable by current standards? Yes.

As far as lying, Greg and Phantom have already said what needs saying as far as individual Vulcans go. However, when it comes to national security, or ship or whatever, personal honesty doesn't necessarily apply. It's national security that matters. The logical conclusion can be reached that security is more important than an individual's honesty. What was that? "The needs of the many..." As a matter of fact, in pretty much every case I can remember of a Vulcan lying, from Spock to Tuvok to T'pol, it stems from this ethic.

As for Enterprise, IMO one of the primary themes of the show is to illustrate how multiple races working together (specifically those that found the Federation) will effect each other, hopefully for the better, and how the become the races we know. In the Human-Vulcan dynamic, Humans will help/force the Vulcans out of their narrow-minded, xenophobic ways. The Vulcans will help to temper the passions of Humans so they're not always running into trouble.

I honestly don't remember examples from TNG or DS9 specifically referring to Vulcans lying or not. Certainly I do from TOS. But then we all remember a lot of things from TOS -- different warp scale, laser rifles , non-bumpy Klingons, that got changed later. Sorry you don't like Enterprise Vulcans though. I think they're a lot fun, if you can say that about a Vulcan.

-- Daniel

[USS Kochanski]

You know, Enterprise makes for free energy. Think about it, if we could harness the energy of Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave, similar to the buttered cat array......

[Trinity Zeldis]

This past Wednesday night, my step kids reminded me after I got home from work, that Antiprise was on. I sat down after a giggle and held them in my arms and asked, "I'm so happy I have two children in my home who love me enough to remind me when a TV show is on."

Their response was almost in unison, "We know you like Star Trek."

Astonished, because they both know very little about the series though they roleplay in the universe rather well, I asked them what made it Star Trek.

Their answer was, "It says so. Plus it has the Vulcans, and the ship has those engines on it."

I asked them then, "Is there anything about it that is not Star Trek?"

After several moments, my 9-year old step daughter answered, "Yeah. You don't watch it."

Nodding with a smile, I asked her, "Anything else?"

A few more moments thought went into it before she spoke again. "Their uniforms are wrong, and the pointy eared people are mean when they should be like computers."

And out of the mouths of babes, ladies and gents, comes the truth. When even a child who isn't a fan can tell the difference, there is something terribly wrong.

[General Chang]

Let me put this succinctly. To each their own.

To be more elaborate.
If an episode can make you respond through laughter, thought, or crying (or come damn close to it) then that is effective story telling. And in my humble opinion, every single Trek series has done just that for lots of fans, myself included.

And just so that you know, I have made this statement knowing full well that the detractors of Enterprise and Voyager would probably reply with something like:

"Those shows have made me laugh; at how ridiculous their concepts were. Those shows have made me think; about how the shows can be done better. Those shows have made me cry, or come damn close to it; I cannot believe how they are bastardizing Trek."

Well, to them I say this: If all the Trek shows were about the exact same ideals...what a boring set of spinoffs we would have.

But they are NOT!

Star Trek The Old Show (oops I mean The Original Series)
Semi Utopian ideals, the exploration of the Galaxy, hot chicks in tinfoil bikinis or green skin.


Star Trek The Next Generation
Started out like a major ripoff of the Old Show, but then got its own identity after the last half of season two. Although much more politically correct than The Original Series (or DS9 for that matter), it did embody a lot of Gene Roddenberry's ideals.

Star Trek Deep Space Nine
Much much grittier and seamier than any Trek show to date.
DS9 was essentially STAR WARS for Star Trek (and still to date, my favorite of the shows). We got to see outsiders' perspectives of the Federation. That was the freshest take ever, to see the Federation vilified by semi-good guys like Quark and Garak.

Star Trek Voyager
Many so called Trek fans would denouce this show as "Star Trek meets Lost In Space". But they weren't necessarily lost.
They knew how to get back home, it would just take them forever and a day to get there. In LIS, the Space Family Robinson was genuinely lost....no bloody idea where they were! This allowed for the crew, especially the wonderous Captain Janeway, to be put in personal and professional dilemmas, even though the source of their problems in dealing with situations lay 70,000 light years away. If I were to have a toss up between who was my favorite Captain, it would be either Janeway or Picard.

Enterprise
This show is supposed to be gritty. If anything was Wagon Train to the Stars, then this show is IT! We are dealing with people who are not too far recovered from WW III and First Contact with the Vulcans. These people are pioneers into space, with attitudes at times! They are not the stuffy, pious mouthpieces of Federation Policy and Prime Directives. They are wonder-struck HUMAN BEINGS who react in very human ways.
I am not surprised at the nature of the language they use on the show either. These are people who have not been brainwashed by the dogmas of the Prime Directive and Political Correctness.
And yes, to all the oversensitive types out there: I use the term "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" as a curse word!
My only gripe about Enterprise is this: How in the hell can they explain this ship, when it never even appeared in Star Trek The Motion Picture? (Re: The Decker/Ilia scene in the recreation deck...."All those ships were called Enterprise.")
To that, I offer one possibility: THE TEMPORAL COLD WAR. Something about the TCW could conceivably erase all traces of the NX-01's existence. Thus restoring the "revered" timeline that all hardcore old school trek fans love so much.

I simply take Enterprise for what it is....a seperate sci-fi show with something of a connection to Star Trek. Great stories, well done characters, excellent action and visual effects. What more can I say to annoy the naysayers of Enterprise?

Respectfully to half of you that I've not even met, and not half the respect to those I may never want to meet,
General Chang

[Cochrane]

So has the possibility occured to everyone that Super Bombad Future Guy is Borg related? Maybe Hugh, One, Lore or Locutus? And connected directly to the Borg from First Contact? Am I totally bonkers? Wait, don't answer that last one.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by Trinity Zeldis


A few more moments thought went into it before she spoke again. "Their uniforms are wrong, and the pointy eared people are mean when they should be like computers."

And out of the mouths of babes, ladies and gents, comes the truth. When even a child who isn't a fan can tell the difference, there is something terribly wrong.

Except the Vulcans were never actually 'like computers' in the first place. In fact, Sarek (who is more a true Vulcan, IMHO than his son) is pretty mean to Spock in Journey to Babel. And T'Pring is disdainful of pretty much everyone. So I respectfully disagree.

[Greg Smith]

I have to agree with Captain Hunter. Sarek fell out with Spock because Spock chose to join Starfleet, surely that is both an emotional response and a biased one. And it fits perfectly with the Vulcans we see on Enterprise.

[Steele1701]

You cannot stereotype an entire race. Vulcans in general are honest and honorable, but there are bound to be plenty that are not. Sometimes political or policy situations call for them to be less than honest or to outright lie. It is more out of need than desire. The Vulcans of the 22nd century look at humans as if we were primitives so they do what they can to keep humans from causeing anymore damage than they have.

[AslanC]

Don't forget that Spock (like Worf) tried to live up the ideal of his people, when they themselves may no longer do so (very evident in th case of the Klingons)

I have no problem with the Enterprise Vulcans.

Certainly a culture can change in the course of a 100 or more years?

Things that stagnate tend to die off.

[Lowly Uhlan]

Gen. Chang:Excellent veiw on ENT.One thing I noticed about NX-01's crew from the get go was that they were people much closer to us real time people than any other ST crew.Explorers who don't really know what's out there.Similar to us in attitude.Definetly different than any 24th century crew.This is a refreshing change.I have liked ENT since the beginning and it keeps getting better.The stories kind of lack depth sometimes but I can overlook this due to the shows strengths.This Trek is markedly different.What a cool show.

[General Chang]

Thanx for the support on that, Lowly Uhlan.

I don't know if I am going off thread with this next statement, but it is one that I feel needs addressed, and I would love to hear feedback from both sides of the fence on this.

Lots of people complained about the rather sexual approach of bringing in Seven of Nine on VOYAGER, and T'pol (Vulcan woman in a catsuit) on ENTERPRISE. They feel that these characters were brought in simply to arouse the male audience (especially younger males) of these shows, and try and boost the ratings through the cheapest possible means. They feel that these characters lack depth, and have no personalities beyond their physical assets.

Hmmmm....let's see.

I will admit, quite proudly, that Seven and T'pol make for great eye candy. But you know what....I also think that Crewman Cutler (Phlox's nurse), Jadzia, Ezri, Nerys, Kes, Troi, Crusher, Sato, B'elanna and Janeway....especially Janeway...make for great eye candy too. And what do Seven, T'pol, and all the other lovelies
have in common? They are all STRONG characters. They are empowered, independent, intelligent and intellectual women, capable of taking action and making command decisions. That their uniforms happen to fit them rather well, and are quite easy on the eye is merely a bonus. Such is the nature of Hollywood though. About the only time you might see some frumpy dumpy, generally unattractive woman in episodic television is in a sitcom. But then again, those characters sometimes have the same traits as their sci-fi sisters.

I have seen two sides of the feminist issue regarding the women of Trek.

Please bear in mind that in neither case am I attacking feminists. I am just trying to see both sides of the story here. Not attempting to start flame wars. We play nice here, okeeday?

Side A: The feminists I have come to know and love are the ones who have embraced the very factors about Seven, T'pol, et al that I listed above. They recognize that despite these obvious good looks, these characters are not treated as "second class citizens". In many cases, their characters are deferred to. Janeway most of all, I mean, she is the captain of VOYAGER. These are also the same feminists who love shows like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The women in those shows kick arse, and are also intelligent, independent, and in many cases, do a lot of the rescuing. That they are also blessed with good looks is again a bonus. I especially love Alyson Hannigan (Willow of Buffy).


Side B: There are the other feminists who apparently cannot see past the tight or revealing uniforms/outfits of these characters. All they see is the apparent cheap shots the shows may be taking to try and boost ratings (and the testosterone levels of the male audience). They see the sexual visual appeal that these characters offer, and nothing else...and they of course do not view it positively. They immediately assume that these characters are bimbos. No brains, just bods. I must ask this party: Have you ever actually watched an episode which truly features these characters' intellectual, spiritual, or independent sides? (And I assure you, there are myriad episodes which do this.)


My overall response to all naysayers of the sex appeal factor of these characters is this:

Sensuality has been at the core of Star Trek since its inception. At least the miniskirt uniforms (regrettably) died out with the end of TNG's second season. But the miniskirt uniforms of TOS were a reflection of the 60's era....miniskirts were hot items back then, and Star Trek has always been a reflection of the times, both in philosophy and style. (Although I must admit I am sooooo glad that they have not adopted the "alterna-chick" style.....super baggy clothes.)

At least the women of today's Trek shows are fully covered. (Not that I didn't like the miniskirt outfits of TOS....I sorely miss them, and it was nice seeing Jadzia don one in "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9). But, on the superficiality of the coverage issue....both Seven and T'pol are covered neck to toe. No cleavage showing, no bare leg or arse. Completly covered. Their uniforms are just hella tight, that's all.

Despite the fact that the women of TOS wore such revealing outfits, I think Gene Roddenberry and his writers did the best they could at the time to keep the women of that show from seeming like second class citizens. The execs of that era were still uncomfortable with the ideas of the women being more independent....and even less comfortable with the idea of a woman being in any command position at all (unless they were the bad guys like the Romulan Commander of "The Enterprise Incident"...who also happened to wear a revealing uniform.)
They absolutely refused the idea of a woman being the First Officer of the Enterprise. They feared that people just would not buy into the notion. (If you were to read a textbook for Home Economics back in the 50's and 60's, you would definitely see the attitudes reflected at the time toward women.) It would definitely give the women of today an appreciation for how far along society's attitudes toward them have evolved into something better.

Well....enough of my ramblings for now. Any takers? (This might be a whole new thread all its own...and if it is, I apologize to the originator of this thread.)

Respectfully,
General Chang

[Joe Dizzy]

I have to say that I object to the "sex appeal" (and I use that term in the broadest sense) of Enterprise, because it feels tacked on, juvenile and like a cheap attempt to grab attention.

If the sexual aspects were part of the character and fit into the character, I wouldn't mind. But they don't IMO.

[Dan Stack]

I find myself agreeing strongly with Joe here. I'm one who tends to enjoy Enterprise and have nothing against a show having sensual aspects.

But with Enterprise, I just don't see it working. The mini-skirt of the 60's, people often tend to forget, was something empowering - it was a form of revolution, that a woman did not have to conceal her femininity.

The sexual aspects of Enterprise (along with the mirror universe episodes of DS9) are all too often immature for my tastes. And it tends to detract from the characters - Archer, for example, lost a lot of respect, in my opinion, over the whole obsessing with T'Pol thing in "A Night in Sickbay" - I actually got some chuckles out of it at the time but now months later a bad taste remains.

Enterprise has, in my opinion, been more mature succesfully, on occasion - just too rare an occasion. Off the top of my head... Two instances I can think of - the first was T'Pol's fling with the renegade emotional Vulcans. And Hoshi's fun on Risa - even though it wasn't much more than a brief fling. In both cases the characters felt true to their natures. T'Pol being confronted with an aspect of her society, Hosi finding someone very similar to herself, even though only for a brief liason. That's where such stories can work with the character, not against the character. T'Pol getting a bug so she can glisten with decon gel and try to mate with everyone... just doesn't do it for me.

For a counter-example, picture Spock running around Enterprise in "Amok Time", wearing only a thong and trying to mate with every woman on the ship. I'm glad that's not what we got. "Amok Time" handled sexuality in a mature manner and is considered by many one of the superior Trek episodes.

[General Chang]

Touche to Joe and Dan.

Again, at least for me....if the show makes me feel like laughing, crying, or thinking, then the show has done its job, regardless of the approaches they take.

I would have to say, that for me, the only time I would find the whole sensuality/sexuality thing completely silly is if the women of Trek started wearing "Hooters" outfits. But one has a better chance of seeing someone get bitten by a shark before that'll happen. LOL

Any other takers?

Respectfully,
General Chang