Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 104

Thread: ENTERPRISE strongly rumored to end this year

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,548
    Originally posted by Stokar
    And wow Seven of Nine, the stupidest move ever. She could not even act.
    *Beats poster over the head with "Infinite Regress" until cranial collapse occurs*
    "It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid" -- Quantum Crook

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    176
    I'd like to suggest an alternative explanation for ST:E (as I think it is now officially named). It is not that ST:E is specifically trying to reach a new type of audience, but rather than it is trying to re-capture an earlier time of higher numbers. ST:TNG was truly a phenomenon. At its height, it pulled in more viewers weekly than any other syndicated show besides "Jeopardy" (big stuff in the early 90's). Granted, that was with a lot of different airings because syndicated shows air multiple times through different markets every week (unlike network shows, which air once unless the network schedules a re-run). I think the UPN-era ST franchise has been desperate to pull in those numbers again, but there are numerous problems. First, UPN is a network, thus losing the syndicated advantage of ST:TNG (I know this has been discussed here before). Second, TNG achieved its numbers because it somehow crossed demographics: not just 14-30 males, but also their girlfriends and some of their mothers and fathers. How much of this was due to the quality of the shows and how much was due to the surprising popularity of Patrick Stewart (People's "sexiest man alive" in like 1993, remember?) is hard to say. But third and most important, the bulk of the TNG fans are now well into their 30's (or older) and busy with careers and families, less likely to *regularly* watch a show (especially if they were not "Trekkies" but just happened to like TNG). So, to me, ST:V and ST:E changes were an attempt to recapture old numbers while realizing the only way to do this was to grab for the new younger audience replacing the aging viewers.

    I agree with the S:A&B comments. The worst legacy of that awful "Starship Troopers" movie was the proliferation of the guy-and-girl "Melrose Space" whiney Friends-platoons. It has never ceased to be silly in execution. "Firefly" is the only show that made me buy it for a second.

    About "Farscape": I am the only sci-fi fan on the internet who got sick of that show? It seems like everywhere I go the people are praising it like the Golden Calf of sci-fi. I stopped watching in the second season, after that embarrassingly bad arc in which Crichton got forcibly married and turned into a statue. Anybody else feel like me, or am I a lone voice on this one?

    About Seven-of-Nine: I actually was surprised by how good an actress Jeri Ryan turned out to be. When they first cast her, I am sure it wasn't for her dramatic range. At first I was disgusted by the cheap ploy of creating a sexy character in a catsuit...but I quickly overlooked her physical attributes and instead got into the character. And you could see the writers feeling the same way: by the end of the series 3 out of every 4 episodes virtually were about either Seven or the Doctor--flat out, they were the most interesting to write for and for viewers to watch. The rest of the character, despite the good actors playing them, were flat bores that grew at a snail's pace or not at all (Kim).
    Scottomir's LOTR Game Resources:
    http://www.geocities.com/scott_metz/

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Dundee, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,808
    Originally posted by Scottomir

    About "Farscape": I am the only sci-fi fan on the internet who got sick of that show? It seems like everywhere I go the people are praising it like the Golden Calf of sci-fi. I stopped watching in the second season, after that embarrassingly bad arc in which Crichton got forcibly married and turned into a statue. Anybody else feel like me, or am I a lone voice on this one?

    Lone voice no, but certainly not the definitive one. And if you stopped watching that far back, I don't really think you can have an honest, informed opinion about the show.

    But each to their own. If you don't like it, you don't like it. No big deal.

    "You can't take a picture of this; it's already gone." -Nate Fisher, Six Feet Under.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Seventh Most Dangerous City in the USA
    Posts
    311
    Scottomir, I'm pretty sure that Enterprise was actually targeted to a different audience, with the secondary assumption that the prior audience would tune in regardless. I cannot produce a quote for you to prove this, but there was evidence at the time it was brought up on the startrek.com boards.

    As to the appeal of TNG: TOS had just as broad a spectrum of audience members. Remember it wasn't the fanbase that crippled the show, it was the networks (which have always been flawed IMHO). Even so, it was really the movies that kept a mainstream audience viable for Trek, paving the way for TNG ultimately. But obviousyly, yes, TNG had greater numbers than TOS. I would have watched TOS when it first ran, but I wasn't alive then. I watched it faithfully in syndication as a kid, though, and all my friends did too. And an audience was literally born for the show! I'm part of a generation that has watched Trek through every incarnation and has stuck with it. I know there are others out there and many of them are here. Granted, work has kept me from watching it in the past, but luckily, someone invented VCRs and TiVOs.

    But I can't disagree with your basic point.

    I don't think the "Melrose Space" or "Deep Space 90210" concepts have to be silly, but they most often are, simply because of the writing. Get somebody with either experience writing in the genre or a healthy respect for the genre (preferably both) and I think concepts like Space Above and Beyond could work.

    Farscape: I have my problems with Farscape. Always have. Same with Stargate and Enterprise. It may sound silly to some of you but even though I dislike(d) some of the elements and writing of these shows, I continue(d) to watch them, if only to support the genre. Probably is silly...


    Strictly Speaking
    "When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha."

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Soviet Canuckistan
    Posts
    3,804
    To be honest I think Farscape was a superior product to both Voyager and Enterprise, but that is due to the freshness of the show and the willingness to take risks.

    After the killed Zahann, I never was comfortable thinking a main character would survive an epsiode. That made the drama and the tension palpable.

    Enterprise has really suffered until this season, and even then I find this season to still be subpar television (not just sci-fi or Star Trek).

    Risk... Risk is why we do this, to paraphrase Captain Kirk. While the statements about TNG being successful as a syndicated show are true, don't forget that DS9 was syndicated and while it had more viewers than Voyager or Enterprise, it still had considerably less than TNG.

    Ds9 was good TV though (until the last ep) because there were willing to take risks and allow the characters to change and grow from their expirences.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Seventh Most Dangerous City in the USA
    Posts
    311
    Originally posted by AslanC
    To be honest I think Farscape was a superior product to both Voyager and Enterprise, but that is due to the freshness of the show and the willingness to take risks.

    After the killed Zahann, I never was comfortable thinking a main character would survive an epsiode. That made the drama and the tension palpable.

    Enterprise has really suffered until this season, and even then I find this season to still be subpar television (not just sci-fi or Star Trek).

    Risk... Risk is why we do this, to paraphrase Captain Kirk. While the statements about TNG being successful as a syndicated show are true, don't forget that DS9 was syndicated and while it had more viewers than Voyager or Enterprise, it still had considerably less than TNG.

    Ds9 was good TV though (until the last ep) because there were willing to take risks and allow the characters to change and grow from their expirences.
    I just couldn't get into farscape. Half the time, watching an episode, I felt like i had missed the previous episode. And while I dig character conflict, I think they took it a bit too far. They fought so much it was like "Cops", but in space. But there were episodes I dug. Storylines I was interested in, so my dissing of the show is good-natured.


    Strictly Speaking
    "When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha."

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Salinas, Calif., USA (a Chiefs fan in an unholy land)
    Posts
    3,379
    The only thing I really hated about Farscape was how much they screwed with John and Aeryn's relationship.

    Other than that, I watched the show religiously. But, as with most of the non-Trek sci-fi I love (Firefly), they never survive.
    Davy Jones

    "Frightened? My dear, you are looking at a man who has laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe! I was petrified."
    -- The Wizard of Oz

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    176
    That is an interesting point about the ratings differences between TOS, TNG, and DS9. I think it is probably a red herring to look at TOS ratings, since I think most TV historians grant that the Nielson system back in the 1960's was problematic, inflating some shares and seriously underestimating others (like ST). These shortcomings were supposedly redressed by the late 1980's. The fact that TNG drew higher ratings than DS9 could be a support for one of my contentions, that TNG benefited from the surprise popularity of Stewart. DS9 had a marvelous ensemble cast, no big "star" jumped onto the pages of People magazine.

    Regarding Farscape, I don't claim to have an informed evaluation of the overall series. But I can argue that the series declined so substantially before the end of the second season that I couldn't keep watching. It was a shame: I really liked the premise and most of the first season. Perhaps the show improved after the Crichton statue arc, but I am hard-pressed to imagine how anything could recover from such a quality plunge. I was just curious if I were alone in my attrition from the series.

    The quality of ST:E has been debated to death on this board, with a sub-par consensus emerging. I would not disagree. It is like an even weaker version of ST:V, though the second half of the 3rd season has shown real promise (occasionally DS9 quality). Like 95% of people on this board, I'm also an avid partisan on behalf of Firefly, so no point going on about that. But, I find Stargate a show worth talking about. It is a series I don't blame people for brushing off, because I ignored it for the first five years. It is a strange show, in that once you start watching it builds on you. (The only other series to have this effect on me was The X-Files , which I dismissed for its first three seasons.) Stargate is, I contend, one of the most reliably good sci-fi series ever made. On some kind of generic 1-10 mega scale for sci-fi, I think it consistently bats 7-8 on most episodes, and even the worst I'd not give less than 3-4. On the other hand, very few episodes strike me as "brilliant" sci-fi worth a 9-10. Contrast that with TNG, which featured real extremes (quite a few 10's but no shortage of 1-2's), or ST:E, with a consistent 3-5 throughout much of its life.
    Scottomir's LOTR Game Resources:
    http://www.geocities.com/scott_metz/

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toledo,Oh
    Posts
    67
    personally, I feel that if they do cancel Enterprise, they (Paramount), sure wouldn't make a new series about Klingons right away. If ratings are bad because the public has been "Trekked out", they would be putting a gun to their head by making a new series. I feel if they cancel the show(which I don't think they will), I think they will let the piverbial star trek treasure chest get some dust on it before opening it up again.
    live long and prosper

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Kaunakakai, Molokai, Hawaii, USA
    Posts
    4,020

    Arrow

    As much as I personally desire a Klingon-themed Trek series, I fully know it won't appeal to the mainstream, even if you decide to make it a comedy, a la Third Rock From the Sun (revolves around a Klingon family relocated to Earth with the Father serving as the Deputy Chief of Security for the Klingon Embassy, the Mother is a wetnurse the diplomat's newborn, a young daughter who fully embraces Earth culture, and an angry teen son who gets into trouble because he wants to go back to Q'onos).

    It's better to take a vacation from TV production, and concentrate all resources to the movie production.
    Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

    "My philosophy is 'you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way.'"
    -- Monte Cook

    "Min/Maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game: they're problems with the players."
    -- excerpt from Guardians of Order's Role-Playing Game Manifesto

    A GENERATION KIKAIDA fan

    DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Lawyer

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Seventh Most Dangerous City in the USA
    Posts
    311
    Originally posted by REG
    As much as I personally desire a Klingon-themed Trek series, I fully know it won't appeal to the mainstream, even if you decide to make it a comedy, a la Third Rock From the Sun (revolves around a Klingon family relocated to Earth with the Father serving as the Deputy Chief of Security for the Klingon Embassy, the Mother is a wetnurse the diplomat's newborn, a young daughter who fully embraces Earth culture, and an angry teen son who gets into trouble because he wants to go back to Q'onos).

    It's better to take a vacation from TV production, and concentrate all resources to the movie production.
    But the problem with solely relying on a movie franchise is that they are even dodgier than TV shows and generally cost a hell of a lot more.

    I think the franchise would be better served sticking to TV, doing made for TV movies or occassional TV miniseries "events".

    Both options offer much less risk than a long term series or a big budget movie. B5 and Battlestar galactica showed that TV SFX can be just as big and juicy as Movie SFX, with an obviously smaller budget, so you can slide a bit of the cinematic feel to a TV movie or minseries. It keeps interest in the franchise alive without taking a risk on a missing long term audience like a series would. And because it's not a long term series, you can take risks that a series usually cannot.


    Strictly Speaking
    "When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha."

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Kaunakakai, Molokai, Hawaii, USA
    Posts
    4,020

    Arrow

    I prefer minimizing exposure than what what we already have these days and for the past 10 years. It's better to have one movie every two years than one episode every week.

    And besides, my area no longer carry a dedicated UPN affiliate. I am able to watch ENTERPRISE on a late saturday night because my local CBS affiliate were able to buy airtime like any show in syndication (which, technically is not). And I honestly don't know if that CBS station is going to carry it for another year.

    Have them do movies would guarantee a theater date in my area.

    The only obstacle I see is their current management, and their inability to get the pulse of the franchise's fanbase.

    We need to slow this down because they milked Star Trek to the last drop. Everyone is getting tired of it, like a Rubik's Cube.
    Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

    "My philosophy is 'you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way.'"
    -- Monte Cook

    "Min/Maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game: they're problems with the players."
    -- excerpt from Guardians of Order's Role-Playing Game Manifesto

    A GENERATION KIKAIDA fan

    DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Lawyer

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    I think the main problem is that the motivation isn't there to make the series stand on its own merits, instead of basking in the fact that it is TREK, and thus is destined to make $$$.

    When TOS was made it had no such luxury. Neither did TNG, which had to prove that ligntning could strike twice. DS9 had to show that TREK would work without the ENTERPRISE (or Roddenberry).

    WHat they need is a good concept, stories, and continutity (in other words, the same things that were stressed in the first 3 series!).

    Despire how much TREK has been on TV lately, a really good series would work.

    Even ENTERPRISE could be "saved". THey could use the timewar story arc as a way to eliminate all the contractions with TREK cannon, get some good stories, and voila. A two-parter with guest appearances from old series characters out to restore the "damaged timeline" would be a nice way to do it.

  14. #74
    This message has been removed on request by the
    poster

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Posts
    189
    For what it is worth, I think Enterprise is a great addition to the Trek franchise. While I don't consider myself well versed on Star Trek history, I could see how some fans would have issues with Enterprise if it contradicted established Trek lore. Aside from those issues, however, I feel Enterprise is very much Star Trek. The issues the characters face and the underlying themes of many episodes fit right in with established Trek norms. Additionally, its time setting within Trek history allows for a unique perspective on space travel and exploration. One of the biggest attractions to me about the series from day one was how it presented Trek issues we have come to take for granted: transporters, high warp capability, The Prime Directive, and replicators are just a few things.

    The perceived failure of Enterprise and what it may mean for the Trek franchise is most disturbing to me. It could be argued that over the course of 5 series and 10 movies Trek has pretty much played out every story idea and scenario there is. But the thought that there may not be a Trek show on tv is upsetting to me. For the majority of my life there has been a Trek tv show in active production on the air. I could even argue that I learned more about social issues by whatching Trek than I ever learned in nearly 18 years of formal education. In fact, I would take it a step further and say that a big part of who I am as a individual is, in part, a result of watching Trek. To lose Star Trek entirely would be like losing a part of me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •